Singularity

I’m reading a campaign module for Traveller called Singularity. It’s a boxed set of sourcebooks unlike I’ve ever seen designed for a single campaign, and others who have read it are saying that the campaign would take at least 4-6 years of frequent sessions to get through. I don’t have that kind of time on my hands, but I don’t regret the money I shelled out. I can tell already this is one of the best RPG adventure modules of all time.

It’s also timely for its focus on AI, or more precisely, CI (Conscious Intelligence), as the Travellers (that’s what “PCs” in this game are called) must decide whether or not to ally with a CI called Naalir, change the future, and reshape reality — or oppose Naalir to preserve the status quo. I laugh at this, imagining the reactions of today’s AI snowflakes who despise everything about AI (let alone CI) to levels of blinding rage. No doubt what road they would take. Me, I’m not so sure. I suppose I could be either pro-Naalir or anti-Naalir. I have lots more to read.

I’ll have a complete review when I’ve finished going through everything, but for now it’s worth noting Naalir’s TL (Technology Level) 18 rating. Nearly all of the 11,000 worlds/star systems in the Third Imperium range between TL 0 and TL 15. A few planets are breaking into TL 16, and there are some dead worlds containing ancient artifacts of TL 16-21 from advanced races that are long extinct. TL 18 is unfathomably high. To put this in perspective, our real-world planet Earth is TL 7. Here’s how TL levels break down in Traveller.

TL Era Earth Equivalent Era / Core Technologies Key Breakthroughs & Iconic Gear
0 Primitive Stone Age (Pre-10,000 BCE) Stone tools, fire, clubs, bows, leather armor.
1 Bronze Age Bronze / Iron Age (3500 BCE – 1400 CE) Metallurgy, wheels, writing, sail-driven ships.
2 Age of Sail Renaissance to Industrial (1400 – 1800) Black powder weapons, printing press, ocean navigation.
3 Industrial Age Steam Power (19th Century) Steam engines, telegraph, early trains, rifles.
4 Mechanised Age Internal Combustion (Early 20th Century) Automobiles, airplanes, wireless radio, early plastics.
5 Nuclear Age Mid-20th Century (1940s – 1960s) Nuclear fission, early rocketry, television, radar.
6 Digital Age Late 20th Century (1970s – 1990s) Personal computers, satellites, early internet, basic automation.
7 Information Age Turn of 20th/21st Century (2000s – 2020s) Global data networks, smartphones, drones, early reusable rockets.
8 Space Age Near Future Earth (Late 21st Century) Fusion power, space stations, orbital colonies, smart materials.
9 Early Stellar First Interstellar Steps Jump Drive (Jump-1), grav-chutes, early cybernetics.
10 Early Stellar System Colonization Grav-vehicles (Air/G-Speeders), hydroponics, laser weapons.
11 Average Stellar Interstellar Expansion Jump-2, Gauss rifles, powered armor, early cloning.
12 Average Stellar Common Imperial Tech Jump-3, plasma weapons, heavy battle dress.
13 High Stellar Advanced Imperium Jump-4, cloning, advanced cybernetics, fusion guns.
14 High Stellar Peak Imperial Border Tech Jump-5, personal energy shields, neural interfaces.
15 High Stellar Peak Imperial Core Tech Jump-6, black globe generators, synthetic life extension.
16 Incomprehensible Post-Imperium / Ancient Extinct Disintegrators, matter transport, artificial worlds.
17 Incomprehensible Advanced Ancient Tech Pocket universes, stasis fields, total genetic redesign.
18 Incomprehensible Mythic / Godlike Time manipulation, planet-cracking superweapons.
19 Incomprehensible Transcendent Complete conversion of matter to energy, cosmic scaling.
20 Incomprehensible Reality Shaping Total mastery over the physics of the universe.
21+ Transcendent Beyond Human Conception Manipulation of multi-dimensional space and timeline mechanics.

Unforgettable Stories from Little House on the Prairie

Good and bad things are being said about Netflix’s reboot of Little House on the Prairie, but the only thing really impressive about it is the accurate depiction of Native Americans. The classic series seldom did the Natives justice. But in all other ways the classic series has aged very well. I’d forgotten just how dark it was for a family show. According to this BBC article,

“The new [Netflix] version sticks quite faithfully to the family-friendly tone and spirit of Wilder’s books. By contrast, the first TV adaptation was a much more horrifying affair. Alongside tales of schoolyard japes and pie-baking competitions came storylines involving child abuse, murder, drug addiction, suicide, mental health issues and cancer.”

Some critics even classify the classic series as “Frontier Gothic” for mapping Gothic horror conventions onto stories of frontier life in the 1870s-1880s. Kids were actually traumatized by Little House on the Prairie. It ran for a whopping nine seasons — for a total of 200 stories — and I’ve been revisiting them. Here are my favorite 30, roughly in descending order. I favor the later seasons (5-9) over the earlier ones (1-4), and season 6 in particular is where the series peaked.

 

The Darkest 'Little House on the Prairie' Episode Will Rock You to Your Core
1. Sylvia. Season 7, Episodes 17 & 18. People still talk about this one. It has to be understood in the context of the 1880s, long before anyone had a clue about rape awareness, victim blaming, and the scars left on a 14-year old girl who does absolutely nothing wrong. In these times a girl becoming pregnant out of wedlock (whether by consent or not) got her family stigmatized. The burden of sexual purity was placed entirely on her, and if she was attacked, by God, then she must have behaved immodestly or failed to resist the attack to the utmost of her ability (never mind the innate physical weakness of females). Fathers like Sylvia’s often treated their raped daughters like trash who brought sin and shame into the house. The main cast, for their part, aren’t exactly models of decency either. Harriet engages in victim blaming; Charles and Nells correct her by standing up for the girl, but not in the best way (they brush off a peeping incident by saying that “boys will be boys”). Albert wants to marry Sylvia and provide for her and the baby, more out of pity than love, and Pa tears him a new one for this, telling him that as a 14-year old he’s much too young — forgetting, in his hypocrisy, that only moments before he told Albert that his own father got married at 14. The craziness escalates to a second rape attempt on Sylvia, and in the end she’s killed. This is the best Little House episode for taking a huge risk with a family show, showing how alone and isolated a girl was in these times for suffering the worst crime against her.


2. May We Make Them Proud. Season 6, Episodes 18 & 19. The most famous story of the series is just as raw today on rewatch. Alice Garvey and Mary’s baby burn to death (quite graphically) in a fire because of Albert’s carelessness, and the resulting agony steamrolls over all of Walnut Grove. Jonathan Garvey drowns in bitterness; Mary sinks into catatonic denial; and Albert flounders in guilt. The scene where Mary maims herself — slicing her arms on broken window glass while screaming at everyone for “lying” to her about the death of her baby — remains a disturbing portrayal of someone suffering a mental breakdown. May We Make Them Proud is the second best Little House story for its serious treatments of grief, blame, and the power of forgiveness. Some complain that the series began sliding into horror‑adjacent territory with this story, but for me that’s a point in its favor. The urban legends are pretty wild. People still think Alice Garvey was trying to bash open the window with Mary’s baby to escape the fire, but it only looks like she was using the baby as a battering ram.


3. He Was Only Twelve. Season 8, Episodes 21 & 22. This double bill is a genre bender. The first part is a bad-guy chase across prairies to lawless towns, and it’s as suspenseful as a Howard Hawkes film. The second is a spiritual crisis in the vein of Ordet and capped off by a miracle that feels just as earned. On paper it must have looked risky to try this, but the miracle works as an exception that proves the rule in Little House: that people die left and right, often kids and babies, and such was the way of life in these times. But when James, on his twelfth birthday, is shot by a bank robber and becomes a vegetable, Pa won’t accept it. Alienating his family, he leaves home to become a hermit in the wilderness, where he tends to his comatose son and builds an altar to God, praying day and night for James’ recovery. He encounters a messenger from God in the form of an old man. The atmosphere grows terrifyingly biblical, and when the Lord finally acts, it’s a majestic, humbling, triumphant joy. Even an atheist could be moved.


4. The Reincarnation of Nellie. Season 8, Episodes 1 & 2. In retrospect this is one of the creepiest Little House episodes, with shades of Vertigo as a mother tries molding her new daughter into a clone of the elder. Harriet, grief-stricken over the departure of her precious Nellie, decides to adopt the worst-behaved girl at an orphanage — indeed, Nancy is so evil she makes Nellie look like a saint. The hellish bitch goes so far as to lock another girl in the ice house and nearly killing her. But this is actually more a Harriet than a Nancy story. Harriet has always been my favorite character, and Katherine MacGregor’s full range of acting talents are on display here. When she at first gets the news that Nellie isn’t returning from New York she sinks into a depression and shows a vulnerability we almost never see in the character. Then she fixates on the solution of adopting “another Nellie”, at which point her vengeful maternalism returns, and she bends over backwards to excuse the most appalling behaviors on Nancy’s part. Until the end, that is, when Nancy is put on public shaming (dunking), and Harriet gets in a good shot herself, showing the brutal love that’s sometimes required of parents.


5. The Odyssey. Season 5, Episode 24. The season-five finale turns on a simple plot: a boy gets leukemia and he wants to see the ocean before he dies. He runs away from home, and Laura and Albert go with him, becoming stowaways on a train from Minnesota to California. They encounter another stowaway (a filthy bum who appears to be a drug addict) who takes their food from them and tries to push Albert off the train, though Laura manages to push the guy off instead. Meanwhile, a furious Pa is racing on horseback to catch up with the train and get the kids back home, but when he finds them at a stop he feels sorry for the dying boy and actually joins them as a renegade. It’s quite a spectacle to see the righteous Charles Ingalls become a stowaway and do all the things Charles Ingalls never does — like beating the shit out of a train employee who discovers them hiding, and giving Albert the lightest slap on the wrist when his son steals food from the main car so they can enjoy a hardy breakfast. The ending is sad but wonderful as the Ingalls trio stand tearfully on the beach watching the dying boy achieving his greatest dream.


6. Back to School. Season 6, Episodes 1 & 2. When I think of the most iconic Little House story, I think of Back to School. Laura is 15 now and edging into adulthood. Nellie has graduated and been given a restaurant to run (Walnut Grove’s first), but since she and Harriet are the worst cooks in the world, Ma steps in to work for them. Pa doesn’t like her working for the Olesons, but has little choice since he’s been injured at the mill and temporarily out of work. Almanzo is introduced to the series and Laura is smitten — and inflamed when Nellie moves in on him. She plays a rude prank on Nellie, who retaliates unforgivably by lying to Laura about what to study for on her teacher’s exam. For which Laura throws Nellie into the mud and pounds the snot out of her. But Nellie doesn’t stop there: she tells Pa that she saw Almanzo and Laura kissing, which fires up Pa to assault Almanzo in his own home — sucker punching him not once, but twice, and accusing the poor guy of sexual designs on his little girl. To which Laura screams at both of them, fed up with being treated like a little girl. She has a point: she’s 15, and in the 1880s, the age of consent in Minnesota, like many states, was 10 (it was raised to 16 in 1891). What more can you ask for? The season-6 premiere is one of the most fondly remembered stories, showing the people of Walnut Grove at their best and worst.

Little House On The Prairie: Season One & The Pilot Movie | Blu-ray Review
7. Pilot. Series Premiere. Here’s where it all began, on the Kansas prairie, which makes this the only episode that lives up to the show’s title. By the end the Ingalls family will be kicked off the prairie and into the rolling-hills of Plum Creek (Walnut Grove) in Minnesota, where for nine seasons they’ll stay before getting evicted again. But their brief time on the prairie goes a long way to show how risky life was for settlers like the Ingalls. They build themselves a one-room home, which almost burns down at one point. They get intimidating visits from Indians, who barge into their home uninvited. They lose their dog Jack in a river crossing, until he shows up days later. Wolves come prowling at night. Hunting for food isn’t easy. Hell, I would have been grateful to be evicted by the government after a year of this shit.


8. Home Again. Season 9, Episodes 16 and 17. For parents who want to scare their kids away from drugs, you can’t do much better than Little House’s Home Again. Albert’s addiction to morphine is presented graphically, especially the withdrawal scenes (projectile vomit included), and he’s undergone a severe personality change, becoming a criminal and treating everyone like crap. What’s especially depressing is that he was just recently a victim of Isaiah Edwards’ alcoholism (see #21), but then we’ve seen this shoe-on-the-other foot many times before in Walnut Grove, not least with Albert. He ran away from the Ingalls home in season 5 (Fagin) when he realized that Laura resented the attention Pa gave him; then, in season 8 (Growing Pains), his own resentment of the latest family newcomer caused James to run away. Albert fucks up exactly when he should know better from experience.


9. My Ellen. Season 4, Episode 3. I said that The Reincarnation of Nellie (#4) is the creepiest Little House story but this one is a close contender. Laura, Mary, and a girl named Ellen Taylor go skinny dipping (Laura and Ellen are 11, and Mary is 13), while two boys peep at them from a hilltop. Ellen accidentally drowns in the lake, causing a local tragedy. Ellen’s mother at first blames Laura for her daughter’s death, then, just as irrationally, her husband who moves out. Laura, feeling bad, brings Mrs. Taylor some flowers, and is rewarded for her kindness by being kidnapped and locked in the woman’s basement. In her grief, Mrs. Taylor has deliriously convinced herself that Laura is Ellen. Meanwhile, the town is in an uproar over Laura’s disappearance, everyone immediately blames poor Busby, an ugly and mentally retarded man whom Pa has always told his daughters to avoid. Ellen’s father shoots the poor sob with his rifle even though Busby is entirely innocent and wouldn’t hurt a fly. With everyone dumping on Busby, it falls to a terrified Laura to contend with Mrs. Taylor, which she does by forcing her back to reality.

Darkness Is My Friend (1980)
10. Darkness is My Friend. Season 6, Episode 16. This one actually traumatized me as a kid, and today on rewatch it still makes me uncomfortable. I’m not sure why; certainly I’ve seen plenty of scarier material; maybe my childhood traumas linger subconsciously. It’s an episode that Hitchcock could have written, and gives us a Pa who seems thoroughly incapable of getting the upper hand against scumbag fugitives who come calling in the night. They take over the school for the blind and utterly terrorize Mary, Laura, and the kids who board there. Pa’s plan is as desperate as it is foolish. He impersonates Doc Baker so that he can “operate” on the wounded fugitive, but gets made when the real Doc comes calling, and — in a very tense scene — gets shot by one of the fugitives waiting on the other side of a door. When the same piece of shit backs Mary into a corner, her scream is as bloodcurdling and upsetting as when her baby later dies in May We Make Them Proud. It’s a brilliantly shot episode with the effective night atmosphere of wind, thunder and lightning — though amidst the brutal horror of the home invasion, we do get side helpings of dark humor, as Albert cooks a dinner so awful that makes baby Grace cry and even the dog recoil in disgust.


11. The Faith Healer. Season 6, Episode 10. This episode handles the subject of faith healings rather well, and with a nuance many viewers seem to miss. Reverend Danforth is a fraud, to be sure, but because people believe in his fake healings, he’s able to perform genuine healings, as he does with the boy Timothy. The reverend isn’t in it for the money, or at least not entirely. If he were a pure fraud, it makes no sense that he would call to the stage a genuinely sick person like Timothy; his failure would give him away immediately. Rather, he lets Timothy come forward because he truly believes that he can heal, on account of the belief he has cultivated among the townsfolk with his fake healings. And he does succeed in healing Timothy, albeit only temporarily. The kid dies soon after, and while it’s true that Timothy should have been rushed to a doctor in Mankato right away (at the urging of Doc Baker), the point still stands that Danforth’s healing worked to an extent. It makes his motives less crass even if still misguided. Pa’s thunderous denunciations of the reverend and stage actors give us the righteous conclusion this story deserves, but there’s an equally compelling message here about the power of belief.

https://rossonl.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/gb-mrs-wilder-2.jpg
12. Good-bye, Mrs. Wilder. Season 7, Episode 16. In this story I go from hating Harriet in one moment to applauding and defending her in the next. (Actually, who am I kidding, I love this woman even at her worst.) She clashes with Laura over what changes should be made to the school curriculum — advocating the most useless subjects for kids growing up on a farming community, like French and art appreciation — and when she gets her way with the school board, Laura tells her to take the job and shove it. This leaves Harriet to take over as the kids’ teacher, which she does with unexpected glee, and immediately starts shoving expensive dress codes and French down the kids’ throats. She presents Renaissance art which includes nudes, prompting a furious visit from one the student’s fathers who demands a cessation of these filthy drawings — that’s the part that really had me applauding Harriet. The conclusion is golden, when Laura makes a surprise return and tears the kids a new one as they’re raising hell in the classroom to make Harriet look bad. There’s a part of Laura that wanted Harriet to look bad like this, but she puts aside her spite, and Harriet’s humbled reaction is simply precious. This episode is pure fun and, I think, one of the best stories for both Harriet and Laura.


13. A Matter of Faith. Season 2, Episode 15. Known famously as the episode in which Ma saws off her leg, though of course she does no such thing, as Ma never becomes a cripple in the series. She comes close to sawing off her leg, under inspiration from the passage of Mark 9:45 which advises just that: “If thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell.” God-fearing Ma certainly takes the Lord at His word. What happens is that she gets an infection in her leg and ends up lancing it deeply, after hours of dizziness and nausea. She’s alone in the house since Pa took the girls on a camping trip, and the camerawork is brilliant, showing how the home interior looks from Ma’s increasingly feverish perspective.


14. Barn Burner. Season 5, Episode 20.  There’s a lot to this episode. The fate of a village economy. One man’s racism that torpedoes that economy. The same man’s rage that makes him lash out and assault a boy. His ugly behavior that makes everyone assume that he committed arson on top of striking the boy. The man’s trial, in which Pa, as the jury foreman, picks the jury and is careful to include the defendant’s best friend. A black member of that jury voting against the other eleven by sticking up for the bigoted defendant who despises him. Justice prevailing in the end, even if it’s not exactly the justice we crave against this piece of shit. Barn Burner is a well told story with narrative integrity and takes a proper swing at racism without the overheat and sanctimony of today’s wokeism.


15. The Empire Builders. Season 9, Episode 9. The most underrated story of the series, and evidently loved so much by Michael Landon (who neither wrote, directed, nor acted in it) that he recycled the plot a year and a half later for the series finale The Last Farewell (see #30). While he one-upped the climax with an explosive affair, the rest wasn’t as good as The Empire Builders, which has no narrative bloat at all. It tells of a railroad company that has been given congressional authority to build a station in Walnut Grove, which at first excites everyone with prospects of more jobs and prosperity. But they sing a different tune once the company needs to put tracks across certain areas of land requiring local farmers to lose their homes — including Almanzo’s. The company has all the legal backing they need, but when the women of Walnut Grove show up with guns ready to fight beside their husbands, the company backs down, knowing that gunning down women would be a PR nightmare. So there you have it: the best instance of woman power in the Little House series.


16. Halloween Dream. Season 6, Episode 7. Native Americans were never done justice in this series, but in this episode it doesn’t matter, because it’s Albert’s dream, and it only stands to reason that a white boy’s dream would be filled with all the caricatures and silly stereotypes that a white boy of this time would have had. But there’s also plenty of authentic material, not least the sight of a bloody scalp that makes Albert scream in terror. And the fact that the natives are prepared to execute Laura and Albert for duping them is far more realistic than a Dances-With-Wolves angelic-like portrayal of the Indians. The dream aspect allows for liberties with the plot that involve Laura and Albert acting bravely and effectively in escaping their bondage and fleeing in a wagon. Laura gets in some serious action by throwing barrels of gunpowder out the back of the wagon and shooting them with a rifle as they hit the ground; the explosions kill many of the natives in pursuit. It’s the only time in the series we get to see Laura Ingalls shoot a gun, and again, because it’s a dream it works. A perfect Halloween episode.

https://rossonl.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/o-v-o.jpg
17. Oleson Versus Oleson. Season 7, Episode 12. The title of this one is misleading. Yes, it starts with Nels and Harriet waging war on each other, but war is soon brought to everyone’s marriage, especially Charles’ and Caroline’s. The episode should have been called “Ingalls Versus Ingalls”, as Ma shows teeth for a change and leaves Pa in the lurch to do all the housework and cooking. Which he can’t do for shit: he burns meals and leaves baby Grace screaming endlessly for mom’s return. It’s the feminist episode of the series, as the women of Walnut Grove demand that their husbands sign a petition for the state legislature to abolish the law giving husbands complete ownership of their wives’ property. Pa thinks it’s silly, on grounds that he and Caroline have a sharing marriage anyway, until he realizes that not all wives are blessed to have benevolent husbands. In the end, Pa and other men sign the petition, and Pa even thinks that someday women will have the right to vote. (“Maybe,” says Laura, “but I doubt it.” It would take 36 years for Pa to be proven right.)

https://rossonl.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/hh1.jpg
18. Harriet’s Happenings. Season 5, Episode 8. A scathing parable on freedom of the press. It showcases Harriet — in case I haven’t made clear, my favorite character of the series — as she becomes Walnut Grove’s first gossip columnist and destroys everyone’s trust in the new local newspaper, and in each other. At first the newspaper seems like a great idea, and the sign of a growing modern community, but Harriet uses her column to spread half-truths and lies, in the process (a) demoralizing a boy who decides he has to quit school, (b) financially ruining Jonathan Garvey, and (c) trashing plenty of others in the town. Laura and Albert get in some payback by sabotaging Harriet’s column before it goes to print, editing the text to announce that Harriet’s upcoming 25% off sale at her store will actually be a 100% off sale (for which she is hilariously robbed blind by her customers) and adding in some malicious gossip about Nellie. Harriet then retaliates by shaming the Ingalls family for taking in a “bastard” like Albert, to which Pa strikes back in an effective way: from the pulpit on a Sunday morning. This is a better solution than attempting any legal action against the newspaper’s right to free speech, and it shames Harriet in front of the whole congregation.


19. Castoffs. Season 4, Episode 1. There’s a recurring theme in Little House on the Prairie. Laura resents a newcomer into the family and her crushing guilt requires mountains of melodrama to overcome. In season 1 it was The Lord is My Shepherd: Ma had a baby boy to Pa’s delight, which made Laura jealous; then the baby died and Laura held herself accountable, running away from home and climbing a mountain to beg God forgiveness. In season 5 it was Fagin: Albert became her stepbrother, and again she got jealous over the attention Pa gave him, which caused Albert to run away out of respect for Laura, until she repented of her jealousy. In between these two stories came Castoffs. Here Laura neglects her dog Jack who dies shortly after; it devastates her and she has nothing but resentment for the new dog (Bandit) that Pa brings home; it takes the advice of an outcast itinerant traveler — an 80-year old hag scorned by almost everyone in town — to convince Laura that she should return the new dog’s love. This girl has heart.


20. The Return of Mr. Edwards. Season 6, Episode 8. In all the 200 episodes of this series, Pa never strikes any of his precious girls — except in this one, where he slaps Laura’s face not once but twice. We can perhaps cut him some slack since his friend Isaiah Edwards just tried to shoot himself. Mr. Edwards doesn’t like being a cripple and wants out. This is an extremely dark episode — if it were made today there would be trigger warnings popping up every ten minutes — but a compelling examination of suicide and depression. I was never a fan of Isaiah Edwards in the earlier seasons, but he won me over in season 6. The actor who plays him is brilliant when it comes to the floor of despair, and in season 8 he gets another very strong episode, on which see immediately below…


21. A Promise to Keep. Season 8, Episode 19. Isaiah is back to killing himself again, this time with booze, and Charles is having none of his tripe this time. Especially after Isaiah almost kills Albert on an outrageous binge of drunk driving. Historical note: I’m not sure why Isaiah wasn’t arrested for that. While motor vehicle DUI laws obviously didn’t exist in the 1880s, municipal ordinances and state laws broadly prohibited public drunkenness and reckless driving. Intoxicated wagoners and carriage drivers who caused accidents on city streets were regularly arrested and dealt with very seriously. In any case, Charles tells him he never wants to see him again, and since Isaiah’s family has already disowned him, that leaves only Laura who will give him the time of day, and who eventually helps get him back on track.


22. Come, Let Us Reason Together. Season 7, Episode 13. There’s a special place in my heart for this episode. None of the Ingalls or Wilders makes an appearance, except for Caroline, briefly, since she works at Nellie’s. It’s a pure Oleson episode as Percival’s parents visit from New York to meet the woman who is about to give birth to their grandchild. Those in-laws are orthodox Jews, and the clash of religions that erupts results in endless shouting, especially between Harriet and Benjamin (Percival’s father) over how to raise Nellie’s baby. Benjamin insists that his grandchild be raised Jewish and the more loud he gets on the subject, the more Harriet insists otherwise. Nels finally hits on a brilliant solution: if the baby is a boy it will be raised Jewish (to preserve the Cohen name) and if it’s a girl it will be raised Christian. Nellie ends up having twins, a boy and a girl, so both sides win. If you like loud argumentative episodes in the vein of All in the Family, then this one should gratify you.


23. Crossed Connections. Season 6, Episode 12. This one is a sequel of sorts to Harriet’s Happenings (#18) from season 5. Now, instead of a newspaper for spreading poison, Harriet has a phone line. And she owns it completely, having bought the local franchise as soon as telephones are introduced to Walnut Grove. She becomes the switchboard operator and goes into full busybody mode, listening in on everyone’s conversations, and wreaking havoc and ruin on people. She learns a closely guarded secret of Alice Garvey and broadcasts it all over town, causing a major rift in Alice and Jonathan’s marriage. As in Harriet’s Happenings, Laura and Albert give Harriet some payback, and in this case quite brutal: they conspire with the town banker to leak a phony stock tip over the phone line. When Harriet hears that she sinks her entire share of the Oleson family finances into the company in question, which then promptly goes bankrupt, causing her to lose a shitload of money. That’s some fine payback.


24. Divorce, Walnut Grove Style. Season 7, Episode 7. I think of this one as Crossed Connections, Part 2 (see #23 above), since it involves Harriet’s most hilarious scene at the switchboard, as she uses her phone business to spread the lie that Laura and Almanzo are getting a divorce. She’s wrong about the divorce, but it’s true that Laura and Almanzo are having a nasty marital conflict, with Laura convinced that he’s having an affair with Brenda Sue. So convinced that she assaults Brenda Sue outside of Nellie’s Diner, pummeling her in the dirt, while the school children surround them and cheer the fight on. Then Caroline intervenes, and so on. It’s all over a silly misunderstanding, but it’s most entertaining, especially seeing Laura get this vicious.


25. Once Upon a Time. Season 9, Episode 15. Forty-four years prior to Laura’s publication of her first Little House Book (in 1932), she had the opportunity to publish the same stories, which she ultimately turned down. Well, no, not really. This story is completely fictional. Laura never entered a writing contest in Minneapolis in 1888, nor did she spurn a book deal because she couldn’t stand the editorial changes. But it makes for a good story and I like seeing Laura awarded as she deserves to be, even if the financial rewards are fleeting. Once Upon a Time is a story of a country woman overwhelmed by sudden success that loses its luster when she realizes she can’t tell stories on her own terms.


26. Bunny. Season 3, Episode 2. It never fails to amaze me how terrible Laura can be in taking revenge on Nellie. There are many instances of this throughout the series, but her most egregious retaliation comes in Bunny. Nellie, per usual, goes out of her way to be a shitty person, especially whipping the horse (named Bunny) that once belonged to Laura but is now hers thanks to Laura selling it to the Olesons. Animal cruelty like this wouldn’t be shown in today’s family TV shows, but that pales in comparison to Laura’s revenge. When she realizes that Nellie has been faking her injury that keeps her in a wheelchair — and heaping shitloads of guilt on Laura by making her wait on Nellie hand and foot — she has every right to be pissed. But to take Nellie in her wheelchair and throw her down a perilously steep hill could have killed her, let alone cripple her for real. Well, I guess that’s what I like about this series.


27. A Child With No Name. Season 9, Episode 18. This really happened: Laura Ingalls Wilder had a son in August 1889, who died soon after, and before she and Almanzo could name him. What didn’t really happen was Laura blaming the local doctor of incompetence. But that fiction is dramatic (and very typical of Michael Landon) and is used to great effect. Laura’s public shaming of Doc Baker nearly ruins his medical practice, as the other townsfolk start avoiding him and leaving town when they need medical care. He comes close to leaving Walnut Grove until Laura’s baby daughter Rose comes down with smallpox, and Doc Baker helps Rose to recovery. Laura repents of treating the doctor so horribly, and all is well again. A Child With No Name is poignant if predictable.


28. Plague. Season 1, Episode 18. This was the first time Michael Landon showcased his daughter Leslie Landon as a guest actor, and she did well. In her emotional scene with Dad, her character (whose name is also Leslie) says that she isn’t afraid to die, since passing away in a church building means going straight to heaven. If she says so: I suppose that was a reason for using the church as a makeshift hospital. The heroes of the story are Pa, Dr. Baker, and Reverend Alden who work themselves to exhaustion, caring for the infected (and at great hazard to themselves), until they finally zero in on the root cause: the town’s supply of cheap cornmeal bags infested with rats.


29. Blizzard. Season 3, Episode 11. This one’s a lot like Plague. Tragedy smacks the town, though unlike in Plague, where no one actually died, the blizzard kills one of the fathers searching desperately for his kids. This is a Christmas episode, and while there’s rejoicing in the end, the death of a townsman — and the near death of many kids — makes Pa’s gospel reading from the infancy narratives a somber affair. It’s funny that only a year after this first aired, we got the blizzard of ’78, which was worse than the storm depicted in this story. I remember our house being buried in 21 inches of snow and having school closed for a whole week. It made Little House seem prophetic.

Little House on the Prairie': Landon's Explosive Farewell Explained
30. The Last Farewell. Series Finale. The last we see of Walnut Grove copies the plot of The Empire Builders (see #15). In both stories, an outside corporate entity (a railroad in Empire, a land tycoon in Farewell) claims legal rights over the land of Walnut Grove and nearby regions. In both stories, the citizens feel initially helpless against legal eviction, but they band together and stage a collective standoff. The difference makes the difference: while Empire resolves peacefully (the railroad is forced to reroute the tracks to a different town, in order to prevent financial losses from delays), Farewell bids a nasty farewell to the evictors by escalating conflict to an explosive conclusion. There’s no stopping the evictors this time, and the people of Walnut Grove are forced to leave — but they take revenge by rigging their homes and buildings with dynamite and blowing everything to smithereens. That’s a fabulous exit point, however, this story is also a slog at times, with too much screen time given to Jeb and Jason’s rabbit breeding and other boring material. What often goes unnoticed is that our heroes of Walnut Grove end by getting a taste of how the Indians were always shafted. Though of course the Ingalls family had already tasted this in the series premiere, when the government threw them off the prairie in Kansas. The Last Farwewell thus brings everything full circle.

The Odyssey: Literary Revisionism, Cultural Revisionism, and Dramatic License

I originally planned to skip The Odyssey because I’ve been burnt out on Chris Nolan. He hadn’t had a good film since Inception. But then came the reactions; and the overreactions. Right-wing snowflakes can be ignored, but right-wingers like Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh — often buddies who see eye to eye — are at least competent film critics. They certainly don’t agree about The Odyssey. Shapiro calls it a masterpiece, suggesting that many of his fellow conservatives are “missing the Biblical forest for the woke trees,” saying that the movie is grounded in biblical morality and is a “large-scale win for civilizational values.” That got my attention: a pagan epic being praised for aligning with the Judeo-Christian bible. We’ll come back to that.

Matt Walsh, by contrast, outright denies the “Biblical forest”. To him The Odyssey is an ocean of wokeness that drowns any competing elements like a tsunami. He has plenty to say about the matter, and we’ll start here:

The Odyssey is a three-hour-long middle finger to its source material, to Western civilization, to white people, to Greeks, to literature, and to moviemaking in general. It contradicts itself to the point that every important aspect of the story — from the plot to the theme to the characterization — is reduced to incoherence.

I’ve seen people desperately trying to describe this film as pathbreaking, awe-inspiring, and even transgressive — almost as if they’re trying to make it true. But infusing modern liberal values into an ancient story is pretty much the least transgressive thing a Hollywood director can do. It’s utterly cliched and expected. Not the slightest bit challenging or interesting or bold.

To begin with, this movie was just as woke as we thought it would be. The DEI casting in particular is far worse than we knew. Nolan’s version of Ancient Greece is a kind of multi-racial utopia. Well, perhaps not utopia… but in Nolan’s vision, it is nonetheless absurdly diverse and multi-racial. Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics all somehow co-exist in the Mediterranean 3,000 years ago.

The defenders of this film, especially on the Right [like Shapiro], have tried to claim that Ellen Page’s appearance is not a huge problem because she has only a small role… But Ellen Page is not a minor character in this film at all. She is utterly pivotal to the plot. She is one of the most important characters in the entire film. She is the moral conscience of the story. And her inclusion in this film is without question one of the wokest, most radically left-wing things we’ve ever seen in a mainstream Hollywood blockbuster film.

To claim that a movie isn’t woke when a trans-identifying female actress is pretending to be a male Greek warrior serves as the lynchpin of the plot and the film’s moral conscience is just ridiculous. If we are going to rightly claim that it’s woke to have a brown-skinned Hispanic Snow White, then how can we possibly argue that there’s nothing woke about a trans female portraying an ancient Greek warrior? If someone made a movie set in Africa and based on ancient African folklore, and then populated the cast with white people and other random races and ethnicities that have nothing to do with Africa, everyone would say that the casting is ridiculous and distracting at best (and I would agree). Yet the same thing is done in the reverse to a foundational text of western civilization and even conservatives line up to defend it. It’s pathetic, honestly.

I agree with Walsh that Nolan’s film isn’t particularly path-breaking or transgressive. It’s been way over-hyped in that regard. I also agree that it has infused liberal values (yet also biblical ones, as Shapiro said; more on that below) into the ancient pagan world-view. That’s not necessarily a bad thing though, as long as it’s acknowledged for what it is (more on that below as well). But Walsh is just being an idiot about DEI casting. I’ve been known to scorn DEI themes and castings where they are clearly intrusive, but there’s no problem here. A black Helen of Troy works fine, and Walsh’s analogy about white people playing Africans misses the whole point of Nolan’s film, namely the fall of civilization (not just Ithaca). The non-Greek diversity casting aligns perfectly with that theme.

As for Elliot Page being transgendered, that has no bearing whatsoever on the narrative. Not only that, Page gives an impressive performance as Sinon — the important character Walsh describes — in one of the film’s best scenes, when Odysseus meets Sinon’s shade in the underworld: Sinon lashes out at him for using him as a pawn in the Trojan Horse incident that got Sinon killed. But Walsh hates this scene because it violates the classic source material. In Virgil’s Aeneid, Sinon is a master of deceit and knowingly partakes in the trickery of the Trojan Horse. In Nolan’s film he’s a shepherd boy who believes he’s offering the horse as a gift, having no idea that he’s being played to bring about the slaughter and religious desecration of Troy. I like both versions, but this leads us to the pivotal issue of dramatic license.

Zeus’s Law and the Collapse of Civilization

Walsh believes that such license is intrinsically bad — that filmmakers who indulge liberties with their source material are doing great violence. And that Nolan sins grievously in this regard, particularly when it comes to his inflated treatment of “Zeus’s Law”, the central theme of the film.

In Homer’s Odyssey there’s no singular code known as “Zeus’s Law”. There are expectations and rituals pertaining to sacred hospitality — welcoming strangers, offering a meal before questions, exchanging gifts — that are grounded in Zeus’s patronage of xenia (basically the law of sacred hospitality). It was a practical contract that allowed travelers to navigate dangerous regions and build alliances. Guests were fed, sheltered, and treated respectfully, while they in turn had to behave with restraint and gratitude toward their host. Violations of xenia could lead to severe consequences at the local level. So for example, bad hosts or predatory guests (like the suitors in Homer’s story) suffered Zeus’s wrath and/or social retribution. But the practice of sacred hospitality remained an unshakable part of the world order.

In Nolan’s film “Zeus’s Law” is a pillar of belief dialed up to a Golden Rule standard (“treat others the way you want to be treated”) and it combines with the idea that any beggar or stranger might be a god in disguise. Nolan transforms the religious-social code into universal moral law, so that violations of that law threaten the worldly order. Specifically, the Trojan Horse becomes the ultimate breach — the lethal “gift” that undermines all trust encoded in hospitality, thereby breaking the bonds that hold civilization together and ushering in widespread lawlessness. Homer would have laughed at this, but I actually like it as a revision of Homer.

Walsh hates it, though, for the simple reason that it is revisionism:

Contrary to what Nolan seems to think, his idea of Zeus’ law is very different from the Greek concept of hospitality as outlined in Homer. You don’t have to squint very hard to see how Nolan is trying to twist this concept into a not very subtle sermon about modern-day immigration policy.

In Nolan’s film, Odysseus spends a significant amount of time moping around, sullen and depressed, after enabling the destruction of Troy by using the Trojan Horse. In Homer, it was a heroic maneuver. Odysseus had outsmarted his enemies, which was a virtue. It wasn’t portrayed in Homer as a violation of xenia or hospitality or anything like that. There was no sense that Odysseus had committed some grave crime. Odysseus was very self-confident, but he was also effective in crushing his enemies. In Homer, xenia didn’t mean that you would never trick your enemy in war. It was about hospitality — a very different concept that applied to your dealings with strangers.

On the other hand, in Nolan’s film, Zeus’ law works very differently. Zeus’ law, as Odysseus explains it, means that you’re not supposed to use gifts (like the Trojan Horse) as a trick to enable a ground invasion. In other words, whether Nolan realizes it or not, he’s completely bastardized a central concept in the poem.

And in the name of this bastardization, Nolan transforms Odysseus into a whiny, solemn shell of a man plagued by trauma and guilt because he violated some fake idea of Zeus’ law by destroying Troy…

The other problem is that, in the film, Odysseus is so weepy and sad about his violation of Zeus’ law that he decides to go into exile. But first, he has to kill a bunch of suitors who are trying to marry his wife.

Specifically, he has to pretend to be a beggar to infiltrate the palace, at which point he’ll launch a surprise attack where he brutally murders the suitors. In other words, to rectify his violation of Zeus’ law during the Trojan War, Odysseus decides to violate Zeus’ law one more time, by killing the suitors who let him into the palace. But he thinks it’s partially okay, because the suitors themselves were taking advantage of Penelope’s hospitality by getting drunk in the palace and hitting on Penelope while Odysseus was away.

I think, actually, you have to squint very hard to see modern immigration agendas. Walsh sees them because he’s looking for them. As I watched the film the issue never crossed my mind. This is quite unlike a film like Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven, set in the time of the crusades, which is so sophomorically unhistorical that it shouts it hate for Christianity while whitewashing Islam in every other frame. Nolan’s Odyssey is nothing like Kingdom of Heaven. If you’re seeing agendas like this in The Odyssey, you’re looking for them.

Walsh is correct that Nolan has radically altered the concept of xenia, as I’ve explained, but that’s not to the film’s detriment, or at least not in my eyes. Film adaptations can be good, irrespective of their alignment with source material. What would Walsh say about Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ? That’s a great film, in my judgment, even though it takes serious liberties with the gospels. It’s a medieval Catholic portrait, not a first-century one, and is suffused with medieval sensibilities. And I could nit-pick that film in the way Walsh goes down his list with The Odyssey. The deformed demonic-looking child that mocks Jesus and Judas, the demon crow that torments Judas — neither come from the gospels, nor even from Catherine Emmerich. High Priest Caiaphas is given a larger and more malevolent role than the gospels suggest, with scenes of him and temple guards physically or verbally taunting Jesus at the foot of the cross. Jesus talks to Pilate in fluent Latin, which is absurd. The multi-hour physical torture and scourging of Jesus is way beyond the standard Roman flogging protocols described in any historical or biblical texts. Passion of the Christ is as unhistorical and anachronistic as Nolan’s Odyssey. Does that bother Walsh?

No it doesn’t, because Walsh is an arch-conservative Roman Catholic who has been publicly upfront about his love for Gibson’s film. Now, I’m a secular Unitarian, but that doesn’t stop me from liking Passion of the Christ. The fact is that Gibson is a talented director and he made a very good film, regardless of how one like myself feels about the views of a medieval Catholic like Catherine Emmerich. That view is grounded in Christ’s bloody death as an expiatory sacrifice and ransom to repair the sin of humanity. However morally objectionable (many would say repulsive) and historically anachronistic that theology is, Gibson represented it powerfully. On artistic grounds I respect it. And I was moved by it in a way I hadn’t expected to be.

I could say the same thing for other revisionist films. I thought Oliver Stone’s Nixon worked well as a surreal paranoid fantasy. Stone’s JFK, on the other hand, was garbage. Obviously this is all subjective. (On Rotten Tomatoes, JFK has higher critical and audience scores (85%/88%) than Nixon (76%/74%).) My point is simply that faithful adaptations — whether we’re speaking of fidelity to history or to source material — don’t have an inherent advantage over revisionist ones.

Let me also repeat what I said fifteen years ago when I ranked all the major Jane Eyre adaptations (seven of them) and found the best ones to involve the most creativity in adapting Bronte:

Not surprisingly, the best Jane Eyre adaptations are the most creative ones (the Hammer horror approach of ’44, the Harlequin-gothic approach of ’06), while those which slavishly follow Bronte’s text leave much to be desired (the two early BBC productions, in ’73 and ’83). One thing Peter Jackson taught me is that books like The Lord of the Rings are so complex that literal adaptations are bound to fail. Jane Eyre is of the same breed, crying out for reinterpretation over and over again. To the purists who resist such creativity, the wisdom of Rachel Lloyd bears repeating:

“The most criminal film adaptations are those which avoid interpretation in an ironic attempt to remain faithful to the original text. The literal adaptation does its best to stay true to the text by hanging upon its every word, but as a result usually fails to become a film in its own right.”

And yet purists abound who believe that the text of Charlotte Bronte is holy writ and should be altered with fear and trembling. Frankly, I have already read Jane Eyre and invested it with my own interpretation. The last thing I need is for it to be spat back at me verbatim, devoid of vision, like a stage play; I want to see someone else’s interpretation of this great work.

The Matt Walshes of the world struggle with this wisdom. Let me stress again that I’m not saying creativity and dramatic license guarantee a good result. Obviously there are plenty of liberal adaptations that fail. The third Narnian film Voyage of the Dawn Treader is an example. Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit is another; like Lord of the Rings it took extreme liberties with Tolkien’s text but The Hobbit was as bad as Lord of the Rings was good. David Lynch’s Dune was awful. On the other hand, I enjoyed the recent liberal adaptation of Shogun (2024) and disliked the more faithful series from 1980. Given that Shogun is my favorite novel of all time, you’d think that I’d be rather protective of Clavell’s text, and yet it was the more faithful adaptation that came up short for me. You just never know.

So why do I think Nolan’s The Odyssey succeeds? Mostly because I’m a sucker for traumatized and guilt-ridden heroes. When handled well, they’re usually more interesting than traditional ones. Homer’s Odysseus is proud, cunning, ruthless, and enjoys the favor of the gods, and feels little if any existential remorse for the sufferings his actions cause others. To my mind, it’s hard (though not impossible, granted) to make a Stoic character like that compelling on screen. Matt Damon’s Odysseus is compelling for being flawed at heart. He unravels psychologically, not for navel-gazing reasons, but because of the severe impact his actions have on not just his enemies, but on the whole world — and that, by gods, is indeed epic. I approve the ending where he abdicates the throne that he succeeds in taking back. All of Walsh’s complaints — Odysseus being weighed by survivor’s guilt, sickened by his own role in trickery and violence, and suffering PTSD-like flashbacks and emotional numbness — are no problem for me at all. Nolan’s literary revisionism of Homer, his cultural revisionism of ancient Greece, pay dividends. I do meet Walsh halfway: we need to acknowledge the revisionism up front.

I won’t pretend that The Odyssey is a masterpiece, and I’m surprised Shapiro loves it that much. But it was better than I expected, and I’m fascinated that one conservative critic believes it to be a powerful treatise for Judeo-Christian values while the other condemns it for being just the opposite. My view is closer to Shapiro than Walsh on this point. In its revision of the ancient pagan worldview, Nolan’s adaptation does make Odysseus more “Judeo-Christian friendly”. At the end of the film Odysseus is given a remarkably Jewish line: “To burn the walls of Troy is to burn the world entire.” (That’s modified from the Talmud which says, “Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”) And yes to Shapiro, any woke elements are so minimal as to be almost invisible to my eye. Walsh is correct that Nolan has played fast and loose with history and his source material, but fails to appreciate the net positive result.

Rating: 7 ½ out of 10 (close enough to 4 stars out of 5)

Little House on the Prairie and Ages of Consent

For all my enjoyment of season 6 of Little House on the Prairie, I found the fuss over Laura’s marital age to be overdone. The season starts with her infatuation with Almanzo (he’s 23 and she’s 15) and by the season finale they’re both burning for the marriage bed. She’s 16 by this point, a perfectly reasonable age by 1880s standards, but Pa gets all high and mighty, saying he won’t allow them to get married until Laura turns 18.

For the fun of it, I did a deep dive into the age of consent history for the state of Minnesota. I knew it was low back in these times (Little House‘s nine seasons span the years 1874-1889, and season 6 is set in 1882-83) but didn’t realize how low. Most states set the age of consent at 10 or 12, and in most cases it was only by the 1890s that the thresholds began rising to 16. And in those days, age of consent was practically (if not legally) tied closely to the issue of marital sex, since people often thought twice about consensual sex outside of marriage; it risked severe social consequences — loss of reputation, reduced marriage prospects, family rejection, etc. So the idea of a 16-year old Laura getting married to a 24-year old Almanzo (a respectable man in the community who could provide for his wife) would have been nothing controversial in the year 1883, when the age of consent was as absurdly low as 10.

Needless to say, this doesn’t mean that girls often got married at ages 10 or 12, even if it was legally permissible. Most were at least in their mid-teen years when they took vows. But a Charles Ingalls who split hairs over the difference between 16 and 18 can be safely regarded as Michael Landon’s projection of late 20th-century sensibilities onto the 19th century.

Here’s the evolution of age of consent for the state of Minnesota:

1870s–1880s — Age 10. Minnesota’s 1858 statute defined rape as carnal knowledge “of any female of the age of ten years or more, by force and against her will,” making a female under 10 legally incapable of consenting. This 10-year threshold remained in force through the 1870s and 1880s.

1891 — Raised from 10 to 16. In 1891 the ‘age of protection’ for girls was raised from 10 to 16 years, establishing three tiers: under 10 (life), 10–14 (7–30 years), 14–16 (1–7 years). This is corroborated by the Minnesota Supreme Court’s pre-1909 ruling in State v. Erickson, which described the statute as capping protection at 16 — “it is not a crime under such statute to abuse a female over the age of sixteen years”.

1909 — Raised from 16 to 18. The 1913 General Statutes §8656 protected “any female child under the age of eighteen years” (tiers: under 10 / 10–14 / 14–18), with the source note “(R.L. §4927, amended ’09 c. 92 §1)” — attributing the 1618 change to Laws of Minnesota 1909, chapter 92, §1. Combined with Erickson (confirming pre-1909 = 16), the 1909 reform is the change point.

1910s–1960s — Age 18. The under-18 threshold held for over six decades. The 1965 statutes still read “carnally know and abuse any female child under the age of 18 years”, and the Mitchell Hamline article confirms §§617.01–.02 were recodified in 1941 and “remained unchanged for decades” until 1975.

Aug. 1, 1975 — Lowered from 18 to 16. The Criminal Sexual Conduct Act (Laws of Minnesota 1975, c. 374) repealed the old rape statutes and enacted Minn. Stat. §§609.341–.345 (Mitchell Hamline, fn. 88; Laws 1975 c. 374). It introduced a graduated structure: under-13 protected regardless of consent; 13–15-year-olds protected where the actor exceeded a close-in-age gap; and an affirmative defense where the actor reasonably believed the complainant was 16 or older — making 16 the general threshold. The act took effect August 1, 1975 under Minnesota’s default effective-date rule.

1980s–2020s — Age 16. The general threshold has remained 16 since 1975. The modern code (Minn. Stat. §§609.342–.345) provides: under-13 cannot consent to anyone; 13–15-year-olds may consent only within close-in-age limits (no more than 24 months older for penetration, 36 months for contact); and the protected age rises to 18 where the actor is in a position of authority or has a “significant relationship” to the complainant (MN Revisor §609.345; RAINN). Subsequent amendments refined these tiers but did not change the general age of 16.

The Roberts Era, Phase 2: Assessing the Last Nine Years of SCOTUS

The Roberts Court is usually divided into two phases: the moderate-conservative phase from 2005-2018, and the solid-conservative phase from 2018 to the present. I made a catalog of all the major rulings of the second phase to see how I lined up with the rulings. To my surprise, I agreed with the rulings of this era more often than not — about 70% of the time (I was expecting closer to 50%). Those I agree with are coded blue. The evil rulings are in red.

Worth noting is that five important precedents were overturned in the second-phase Roberts era: Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (union agency fees), Johnson v. Louisiana – Apodaca v. Oregon (jury verdicts), Roe V. Wade (abortions), Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (federal agency authority), and Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (job protection for leaders of independent agencies). All five went out the window, some with more justifiable rationale than others. 

2018
  • Sports Betting (Murphy v. NCAA). 7-2 vote. The Court ruled that a federal law prohibiting sports gambling violated the anti-commandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment, paving the way for states to legalize and regulate sports betting. Good ruling.
  • Wedding Cakes for Same-Sex Couples (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission). 7-2 vote. The Court ruled in favor of a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, stating the state commission had shown hostility toward his religious beliefs. Good ruling, though it could have been better. It was a narrow ruling that applied to this case only. The general right of business owners to create, design, and sell products in accordance with their beliefs would have to await the ruling of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023), five years later.
  • Cell-phone Location Data (Carpenter v. United States). 5-4 vote. The Court ruled that the government must obtain a search warrant based on probable cause to access a person’s historical cell phone location data, recognizing Fourth Amendment privacy protections in the digital age. Good ruling, and the ruling of Chatrie v. United States (2026) would later extend this finding to geofence data.
  • Muslim Travel Bans (Trump v. Hawaii). 5-4 vote. The Court upheld the Trump administration’s travel ban, which restricted entry into the U.S. for nationals from several predominantly Muslim-majority countries. It’s the correct ruling, even if Trump’s travel bans were silly. The president has broad discretion when it comes to immigration and border control.
  • Union Agency Fees (Janus v. AFSCME). 5-4 vote. The Court ruled that public-sector unions cannot force non-union employees to pay agency fees to cover the costs of collective bargaining, citing First Amendment free speech rights, and overturning Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977). Bad ruling. This was a repeat of Citizens United, manufacturing a controversy over free expression by treating money and mandatory fees as “speech” or “compelled speech” depending on whose interests are at stake. People are constantly required to fund government activities all the time with their taxes that support policies or speech they dislike, yet that’s never treated as compelled speech. Nor should it have been in Janus. Overturning Abood was terrible. 
2019
  • Private Operators of Public Access Channels (Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck). 5-4 vote. The Court ruled that private companies which host public platforms are not obligated to protect free speech rights. The case involved a public access television network run by a private corporation. While the public TV network must protect free speech rights, the corporation itself doesn’t have to. By the same logic, if, say, a public library sets up a Facebook page, then the public library must respect free speech rights of commenters, but the Facebook executives are under no such obligation if they want to step in and censor comments on the library page. It’s the correct ruling — the First Amendment protects only against governmental interference, not corporate interference.
  • Religious Memorials (American Legion v. American Humanist Association). 7-2 vote. The Court ruled that a 40-foot World War I memorial — a cross — standing on public land doesn’t violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Good ruling.
  • Separation of Powers (Gundy v. United States). 5-4 vote. The Court ruled that the nation’s chief prosecutor is able to write the laws for crimes he gets to punish. Bad ruling — to allow the Attorney General to write his own criminal code violates the separation of powers.
  • Vulgar Trademarks (Iancu v. Brunetti). 9-0 vote. The Court struck down a federal law barring the registration of “immoral or scandalous” trademarks, ruling it a violation of free speech. Good ruling.
  • Partisan Gerrymandering (Rucho v. Common Cause). 5-4 vote. The Court ruled that federal courts have no authority to review claims of partisan gerrymandering. Bad ruling, and a complete abdication of responsibility. Gerrymandering is a constitutional issue and falls squarely within the Supreme Court’s mandate. Partisan gerrymandering should have been ruled as unconstitutional.
2020 
  • Unanimous Jury Verdicts (Raimos v. Louisiana). 6-3 vote. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires guilty verdicts to be unanimous in criminal trials. All states required this except for Louisiana and Oregon, and so the precedents of Johnson v. Louisiana (1972) and Apodaca v. Oregon (1972) were overturned. Good ruling.
  • Workplace Discrimination against Gays and Transgendered (Bostock v. Clayton County.) 6-3 vote. The Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ+ employees from workplace discrimination. Good ruling. Even though the statute says nothing about gays and transgendered, to fire someone for being gay or transgender is to discriminate on the basis on sex, and sex discrimination is prohibited by the statute.
  • Trump and DACA (Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California). 5-4 vote. The Court ruled that the Trump administration’s attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was arbitrary and capricious, blocking the repeal of protections for undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. Good ruling. (This wasn’t a judgment on either Trump’s policy or DACA, only whether Trump complied with the procedural requirement that he provide a reasoned explanation for his action.)
  • Abortion Doctors (June Medical Services v. Russo). 5-4 vote. The Court struck down a Louisiana law that required physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, since the law placed an undue burden on women who need abortion access, and without providing any measurable health benefits. Good ruling.
  • State Subpoenas for the President (Trump v. Vance & Trump v. Mazars). 7-2 vote. The Court ruled that a sitting president isn’t immune from state criminal subpoenas, allowing a Manhattan district attorney to access Donald Trump’s financial records. Good ruling.
  • Tribal Sovereignty (McGirt v. Oklahoma). 5-4 vote. The Court ruled that Indian tribal courts, not the states, have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by Natives on Indian reservations. Good ruling, which expanded tribal sovereignty.

2021

  • Private Foster Care Agencies and Same-Sex Couples (Fulton v. City of Philadelphia). 9-0 vote. The Court ruled unanimously that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with a Catholic foster care agency that refused to work with same-sex couples due to its religious beliefs. Because Catholic Social Services is a private organization, it is under no obligation to certify same-sex couples. Good ruling.
  • Vulgar Students and Free Speech (Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.). 8-1 vote. The Court ruled that a Pennsylvania public high school violated a student’s First Amendment rights by suspending her from the cheerleading squad for a profane, off-campus message posted on Snapchat. Good ruling, obviously.
  • Class-Action Lawsuits (TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez). 5-4 vote. The Court tightened standing requirements for class-action plaintiffs under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, ruling that mere statutory violations without concrete harm do not suffice for federal-court standing. Bad ruling, which made it harder to bring federal class actions.
  • Voting Laws (Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee). 6-3 vote. The Court upheld two voting laws in Arizona, one of which bans the collection of early ballots by third parties, another of which discards ballots cast in the wrong precinct. Bad ruling, which weakened voting rights laws.
2022
  • Private Schools Funded by the State (Carson v. Makin). 6-3 vote. The Court that a Maine tuition assistance program violated the Free Exercise Clause by discriminating against private religious schools and excluding them from receiving state funds. Bad ruling, which lowered the barrier between church and state.
  • Concealed Firearms (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen). 6-3 vote. The Court struck down a New York law that required applicants to demonstrate proper cause to carry a concealed firearm, expanding Second Amendment rights by establishing that restrictions must align with the historical tradition of U.S. firearm regulation. Fair ruling.
  • Abortion Rights. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: 6-3 vote upholding the Mississippi law which prohibits abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy; 5-4 vote overturning Roe v. Wade (1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992). The Court ruled there is no constitutional right to abortion, which returned the authority to regulate abortions to the states. Bad outcome, though arguably the correct ruling. The sad fact is Roe v. Wade was poorly reasoned.
  • Public Employees Expressing Religious Beliefs While on the Clock. (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District). 6-3 vote. The Court ruled that a public high school football coach had a constitutional right under the First Amendment to pray on the field after games. Bad ruling, which expanded protections for religious expression in the workplace.
  • Tribal Sovereignty (Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta). 5-4 vote. The Court ruled that state authorities may prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians on Indian reservations. Bad ruling which undermined tribal sovereignty. It’s inconsistent with the ruling of McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) two years before, and it happened because Ginsburg was gone now, with Barrett as the new justice.
  • Agency Authority (West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency). 6-3 vote. The Court ruled 6-3 to limit the EPA’s authority to broadly regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act, constraining federal agencies’ regulatory powers. Fair ruling, which allowed the EPA to continue to regulating emissions through emissions reduction technologies, but not based on generation shifting mechanisms without considering the costs to power plants.
  • Immigration (Biden v. Texas). 5-4 vote. The Court ruled that the Biden administration could end the Trump-era immigration program that forced asylum seekers arriving at the southwestern border to await approval in Mexico. Good ruling.
2023
  • Indian Children in Need of Adoption (Haaland v. Brackeen). 7-2 vote. The Court affirmed the policy of the Indian Child Welfare Act — that Native American children in need of adoption must be placed with Native American adoptive parents. It’s the correct ruling, if sometimes unfair to children who could be placed with more suitable non-Native parents.
  • Fair Use of Copyrighted Material (Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith). 7-2 vote. The Court ruled that a company’s use of a photograph of the musician Prince doesn’t qualify as fair use of copyrighted material. Bad ruling, and a major shift in copyright law which limits the transformative use doctrine. The purpose of copyright law is to give room to other artists in transforming works, as much as to provide the original artist protection of their own work.
  • Regulating Elections (Moore v. Harper). 6-3 vote. The Court ruled that the North Carolina Supreme Court has the power to strike down the North Carolina legislature’s illegally gerrymandered congressional map. In other words, a state legislative body does not have sole authority to regulate federal elections without any checks from the state courts. Good ruling. It should have been 9-0.
  • Creepy Messages and Free Speech (Counterman v. Colorado). 7-2 vote. The Court ruled that creepy Facebook messages sent by a mentally ill man to a woman does not constitute a true threat and is thus protected by the First Amendment. Good ruling. This one also should have been 9-0.
  • Affirmative Action (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard / v. University of North Carolina). 6-3 vote. The Court ruled that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Good ruling.  
  • Religious Accommodations in the Workplace (Groff v. DeJoy). 9-0 vote. The Court made it harder for employers to deny religious accommodation requests, like not working on Sundays. I take this to be a bad outcome, though it’s the correct ruling. The statute needs to be modified. To expect religious accommodations like this is antiquated. As long as job duties and work schedules are made clear at the point of hire, an employee has no cause to complain; if job duties or work schedules are in conflict with religious beliefs, then the person shouldn’t take the job to begin with.
  • Student Loans (Biden v. Nebraska). 6-3 vote. The Court struck down the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness plan, ruling that the Secretary of Education doesn’t have the statutory authority to cancel billions of dollars in federal student debt under the HEROES Act. Good ruling. It’s worth noting the hypocrisy of certain justices (Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh) who were part of this majority vote and yet would later support Trump’s tariffs; likewise the hypocrisy of the dissenting justices in this vote (Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson) who would later rule against Trump’s tariffs. Gorsuch would underscore the hypocrisy of both trios in the tariffs case. You either believe that the president needs congressional approval for a “major questions” issue (that requires Congress to speak clearly if it delegates authority of vast economic significance) or you don’t. But you should, and you should stick to it, regardless of which party is in charge in the Oval Office. 
  • Wedding Websites for Same-Sex Couples (303 Creative LLC v. Elenis). 6-3 vote. The Court ruled in favor of a web designer, determining that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a creative professional to design wedding websites for same-sex couples against her religious beliefs. Excellent ruling, which finally dispels the confusion over public accommodation laws. Private businesses are obligated to provide equal access to whatever products they create, design, and sell, but they cannot be told what they must create, design, and sell.
2024
  • Racial Gerrymandering (Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the N.A.A.C.P.) 6-3 vote. The Court ruled that the electoral redistricting map in South Carolina was a political gerrymander, not a racial gerrymander, and thus permissible. Bad ruling. It was a racial gerrymander. 
  • Free speech (National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo). 9-0 vote. The Court ruled that New York State government officials violated the First Amendment when they used the power of their regulatory authority to coerce banks and insurers into severing ties with the NRA. Good ruling.
  • Bump Stocks (Garland v. Cargill). 6-3 vote. The Court struck down a federal ban on bump stocks — accessories that allow semi-automatic rifles to fire rapidly — ruling that the ATF overstepped its statutory authority. Bad ruling.
  • Domestic Violence Gun Rights (United States v. Rahimi). 8-1 vote. The Court upheld a federal law prohibiting individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms, ruling it does not violate the Second Amendment. Good ruling. 
  • Government Pressure on Social Media Companies (Murthy v. Missouri). 6-3 vote. The Court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove that pressure from the Biden administration caused social media platforms to censor their anti-vax content. Bad ruling. The government was clearly interfering, and any governmental interference constitutes an infringement on free speech.
  • Federal Agency Power (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo). 6-3 vote. The Court overturned Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), ruling that judges should interpret ambiguous laws rather than deferring to agency expertise, thus making it easier for courts to overturn federal regulations. Bad outcome, though arguably the correct ruling. 
  • Jan. 6 Obstruction (Fischer v. United States). 6-3 vote. The Court ruled that the federal obstruction charge used against many of the January 6th rioters was applied too broadly; the statute applies only to defendants who impair or attempt to impair the integrity or availability of records, documents, or objects. Good ruling.
  • Homeless Encampments (City of Grants Pass v. Johnson). 6-3 vote. The Court ruled that governmental bodies may enforce anti-camping laws against homeless individuals; such policies do not violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Good ruling.
  • Presidential Immunity (Trump v. United States). 6-3 vote. The Court ruled that former presidents have absolute immunity for actions within their core constitutional powers, presumptive immunity for official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. Bad ruling.
  • Social media content moderation (Moody v. NetChoice, and NetChoice v. Paxton.) 9-0 vote. The question in these two cases was whether or not the content-moderation policies of social media companies complied with the First Amendment. The Court ruled that the First Amendment has no relevance: private companies are the ones with the freedom to regulate speech on their platforms however they damn well please. Neither the Eleventh Circuit (for Florida) nor the Fifth Circuit (for Texas) had conducted a proper analysis of the First Amendment challenges to the state laws regulating internet platforms, and so the Court ruled to vacate the judgments of these courts. Good ruling and a no-brainer. Censorship on social media platforms, while often objectionable, doesn’t violate the First Amendment. The Eleventh and Fifth Circuit judges made fools of themselves here.
2025
  • Religious Tax Exemptions (Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission).  9-0 vote. The Court unanimously ruled in favor of religious organizations seeking tax exemptions for operating charitable programs. Good ruling. 
  • Employment Discrimination (Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services).  9-0 vote. The Court found in favor of a heterosexual employee discriminated against by a gay employer, unanimously ruling that employment discrimination claims brought by majority-group members are not subject to a higher evidentiary bar than those made by minority groups. Good ruling.
  • Therapies for Transgendered Youth (United States v. Skrmetti). 6-3 vote. The Court upheld the rights of states to ban medical treatments for transgender minors. Good ruling.
  • Age-verification for Porn Websites (Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton). 6-3 vote. The Court ruled that states have the right to require pornography websites to verify the age of all viewers in order to prevent access by minors. Bad ruling.
  • Parental Rights in Education (Mahmood v. Taylor). 6-3 vote. The Court ruled that schools must provide parents with advance notice and the option to opt their children out of instruction that conflicts with their religious beliefs, particularly regarding gender and sexuality (in this case, LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks). Bad ruling. 
  • Universal Injunctions (Trump v. CASA). 6-3 vote. The Court ruled that lower federal courts exceeded their judicial authority by issuing universal, nationwide injunctions to block executive actions. Ambiguous ruling. I can go either way on the question. Without injunctions, an executive tyrant can cripple citizens (especially uneducated and undersourced ones) for long periods of time. On the other hand, injunctions can give a single district court judge the power to do something lacking precedent and enforcing it nationwide; they can also circumvent class action, by allowing plaintiffs who don’t even qualify for class-action to get the functional equivalent of class-action relief.
2026
  • Tarriffs (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump). 6-3 vote. The Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president the authority to impose tariffs. Good ruling.
  • Voting Rights (Louisiana v. Callais). 6-3 vote. The Court ruled that Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-black congressional district is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Bad outcome, though it’s the correct ruling. The fact that the gerrymander was done for the benefit of blacks, rather than against them, is irrelevant. For the same reason it was correct for the conservative majority to strike down Affirmative Action. But there’s no denying the hypocrisy in the conservative justices throwing up their hands in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), and pleading powerlessness to do anything about gerrymandering for the benefit of one political party (Republican) over another (Democrat), but then turning around and ruling that gerrymandering for the benefit of a minority group is strictly forbidden.
  • Carrying firearms on private property (Wolford v. Lopez). 6-3 vote. The Court ruled that people have the right to carry concealed weapons into shops, malls, theaters, etc, without getting permission from the property owner. Good ruling.
  • Immigration & Temporary Protected Status (Mullin v. Doe). 6-3 vote. The Court cleared the way for the administration to end the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program, removing legal protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants from countries like Haiti and Syria. Bad outcome, though probably the correct ruling. 
  • Executive Power (Trump v. Slaughter). 6-3 vote. The Court expanded presidential authority, allowing the administration to fire the leaders of independent agencies. The majority overturned Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), invalidating the “for-cause” protections that Congress had used to shield independent agencies from presidential interference. Bad ruling.
  • Geofence Warrants (Chatrie v. United States). 6-3 vote. The Court ruled that a person’s cell-phone Location History enjoys Fourth Amendment protection from geofence sweeps. Good ruling.
  • Voting & Elections (Watson v. Republican National Committee). 5-4 vote. The Court upheld state laws which allow the counting of mailed ballots received after Election Day. Good ruling.
  • Birthright Citizenship (Trump v. Barbara). 6-3 vote. The Court struck down Trump’s executive challenge to birthright citizenship, upholding the guarantee of citizenship for babies born in the U.S, whether they reside in the U.S. or not. Good ruling. 
  • Transgender Rights (West Virginia v. B.P.J. & Little v. Hecox). 6-3 vote. The Court upheld state laws that bar transgender girls and women from competing on female school sports teams. Good ruling. 

 

Let’s Talk About Birthright Citizenship

Because, you know, I’m glad that birthright citizenship is still a thing. Like the First Amendment, it’s a beautiful thing that elevates us above other nations. However, as I read through the justices’ opinions in Trump v. Barbara, I wonder seriously how Constitutionally secure birthright citizenship really is. The majority would have us believe so, but I think they skip around hard questions.

Reactions to the ruling aren’t terribly surprising. Supporters of birthright citizenship say this case should never have reached the Supreme Court. Supporters of Trump’s executive order say that birthright citizenship was always a house of cards. If only the truth were that simple. I want to address an article written by Jeremy McKinney from the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). He’s at least intelligent if one-sided, and I’ll comment on parts of his article, “Think Immigration: Settled, Again — Takeaways from the Trump v. Barbara Decision.

McKinney begins predictably:

“Trump v. Barbara should never have reached the Supreme Court. Executive Order 14160 asked the Court to read a domicile requirement into the Citizenship Clause that no Congress, no President, and no court had found there in more than a century.”

Now let’s slow down, because that’s a sly way of putting it. Here’s a more honest way: From its inception in the 1860s, the Citizenship Clause was interpreted by virtually everyone to exclude children of foreign visitors who don’t reside in America — the executive branch (no matter what party was in charge), Congress, the courts, the states, lawyers, scholars, commentators, and more. When the children of temporary visitors born on American soil claimed to be citizens based on the Citizenship Clause, the Executive Branch repeatedly denied their claims. Like Joseph Speck, born to parents from Switzerland; like Ludwig Hausding, born to parents in Saxony; like Richard Greisser, born to parents in Germany; and on and on. Citizenship was tied to domicile as a matter of general law. Likewise, when Congress enacted naturalization statutes, they tracked the domicile requirement. Only when they became domiciled in America were people considered no longer subject to a foreign power. Likewise, the courts followed the same principle. According to Justice Harlan, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Citizenship Clause gave citizenship to “all born or naturalized in the United States and residing here“. It was only in the 20th century, first in 1921, then especially under FDR in the 30s and 40s, when government officials began repurposing the Citizenship Clause to apply to the children of temporary visitors, despite Congress’ disagreement with these executives. Clarence Thomas points all of this out in his dissent, and it paints a picture that’s certainly worthy of a hearing at the Supreme Court: the practice of birthright citizenship in America was a later development, not an early one.

As I read the evidence, it seems clear that for decades almost everyone interpreted the Citizenship Clause (like the Civil Rights Act of 1866) as having a domicile requirement — and that’s what indicated the child was “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”. The child lived in the U.S. rather than residing abroad. It’s true that this domicile requirement was dropped in the 20th century, but how was it dropped? Not through any legal process.

McKinney continues:

“Now what did I get wrong? After the oral argument, I wrote that the Administration would lose and predicted, in writing, that ‘the Administration loses this case, and it probably isn’t close.’ I was right about the loss. I was wrong about the margin. The overall score was 6-3.”

I predicted similarly and was accurate about the margin: “Trump will lose 6-3,” I said, “or maybe even 7-2. Only Alito, Thomas, and possibly Kavanaugh will defend Trump’s intentions to end birthright citizenship.” I was half-right about a wavering Kavanaugh, though he ultimately agreed to strike down Trump’s order on statutory grounds rather than Constitutional grounds. It was Gorsuch, rather, to my complete surprise, who supplied the third dissent, and McKinney didn’t expect that either:

“I was also wrong about Justice Gorsuch. At argument he looked like a vote for the challengers. He called the commentators’ treatment of domicile a mess and pressed the Wong Kim Ark dissent in a way that cut against the government. He then joined the dissent. Gorsuch has been relatively good on immigration. On the cases that turn on text and on the individual’s position against the government, he has often been the vote that mattered. Not this term, and not here.”

Uh, yes this term, if not here. Gorsuch’s vote mattered the most in the tariffs case back in February. He wrote a concurrence longer (and better) than Roberts’ majority opinion. He also wrote a concurrence to Kagan’s opinion just two days ago in voting against geofence warrants. In that case, Gorsuch didn’t approve of the vague precedent endorsed by Kagan based on “reasonable expectations to privacy”, which is determined by whatever judge or justice happens to be sitting the bench. Instead he relied exclusively on the language of the 4th Amendment, arguing that someone’s Location History in their cell phone qualifies as their personal property, and thus unambiguously deserves 4th Amendment protection against searches. Again, Gorsuch’s concurrence was the best opinion against the dissenting conservatives.

But I was definitely wrong about Gorsuch in the birthright citizenship case. He’s such a bleeding heart when it comes to immigrants, and (as McKinney says) his posture in the oral arguments wasn’t exactly warm to the government. So he was evidently seriously persuaded by Thomas’s dissent which he joined. Notably, he didn’t join Alito’s dissent. And no wonder. Thomas’s dissent (relying on a domicile requirement) is the formidable one; Alito’s dissent (relying on an allegiance requirement) is weak and polluted with paranoid fears of how kids given birthright citizenship may grow up to wreak harm on the U.S. I suspect that Gorsuch found Alito’s piece to be stomach-churning in some parts.

McKinney continues:

“I will take one piece of credit. I wrote that the Court had a statutory off-ramp, because the Citizenship Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act use identical language and the case could be decided as a matter of statutory interpretation. That is exactly what Justice Kavanaugh did. He concurred in the judgment alone, voting to strike the order under 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) without reaching the Constitution. His reasoning is simple. Congress enacted the statute’s ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ language in 1940 and again in 1952, after Wong Kim Ark had already construed that exact phrase to contain a closed set of four exceptions. Congress is therefore presumed to have adopted that construction, and the order invents two new exceptions the statute does not permit.

“That makes the real division sharper than the overall score suggests. On the Constitution, it was 5-4. Kavanaugh agreed the order is unlawful but refused to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment compels that result, and he left Congress a roadmap: amend § 1401(a), and the statutory problem disappears. But the roadmap is his alone, and it leads nowhere. The five-Justice majority rested on the Constitution, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment itself makes these children citizens. That choice was deliberate. By resolving the case on constitutional ground rather than on the statute, the majority placed birthright citizenship beyond the reach of legislation. Any bill promising to redefine birthright citizenship by ordinary legislation is posturing, because the Constitution now answers the question, and Congress cannot amend the Constitution by statute.”

Yes, the matter is settled, and as I said, I’m personally happy about it. But I’m not sure the Constitution answers the question as clearly as the majority maintains.

“Where the five-Justice majority was unified, it was unified all the way down. United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) was decided correctly, and the domicile theory has never been the law. The dissents tried to shrink the precedent by noting that the 1898 opinion referred again and again to the domicile of Wong’s parents. The majority did not dispute the references. It disputed that they carried any weight, holding that the reasoning underlying Wong Kim Ark ‘cannot be squared with a domicile requirement.’ The Court had canvassed the text and history of the Clause from the English common law through ratification and found nothing showing the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment believed they were imposing a domicile limitation.”

But as I see it, the majority is being shifty about Wong Kim Ark. Thomas is more persuasive. This from his dissent:

“The Court found it so important that Wong and his parents were domiciled in the United States at the time of his birth that it gratuitously insisted upon that fact throughout its opinion. The Court’s introductory paragraph stated seven different ways that Wong was domiciled in the United States: He was born to parents who were ‘at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States.’ His parents were ‘enjoying a permanent domicile and residence therein at San Francisco.’ His parents ‘continued to reside and remain in the United States.’ He ‘ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to wit, in California, within the United States.’ He ‘had there resided.’ He ‘never lost or changed that residence.’ And, he never ‘gained or acquired another residence.’

“Two paragraphs later, the Court confirmed that its decision was limited to persons born and domiciled in the United States. ‘The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.’ Then, if that were not enough, the Court reiterated the same limits to its opinion in its final paragraph: This case ‘presented for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.’ “

To brush all these references off as “not carrying any weight” is disingenuous on the majority’s part. And let’s be frank: being a resident of a country is a perfectly reasonable requirement for citizenship of that country. It’s why most countries have that condition. Dispensing with the requirement is even more enlightened, in my opinion, but it’s counter-intuitive, and many people object to it for obvious reasons — then as now.

Worth emphasizing is that it was Richard Flournoy, in 1921, who claimed that the Citizenship Clause includes the children of temporary visitors. His article was published in the Yale Law Journal, titled “Dual Nationality and Election”, and it argued that the Clause should be read to incorporate the medieval feudal “jus soli” (“right of the soil”) rule, under which people owed allegiance to the sovereign lord of the land they were born in, including fleeting visitors to that land. And it was under the FDR’s administration in the 30s and 40s, that this birthright citizenship idea became normalized and applied to the children of temporary visitors to the U.S. Prior to this, nothing had been codified in law about birthright citizenship. The case of Lynch v. Clarke (1844) is often invoked, but that ruling didn’t have anything to do with the Citizenship Clause, but rather a New York state law, and that law was replaced immediately after Lynch. By the time the Citizenship Clause was established over twenty years later, Lynch had been effectively abrogated. So to pass off “jus soli” as the “original” belief and practice of United States citizenship is simply wrong.

McKinney has more to say about Gorsuch:

“Justice Gorsuch joined Thomas but wrote separately, and his separate opinion is the one that practitioners should not skip. He voted to dissolve the injunction on a procedural ground. Respondents brought a facial challenge, which means an executive order with any lawful application survives the challenge. Per Gorsuch, because the order lawfully reaches the children of genuinely temporary visitors, the facial challenge should have failed. But he did not stop there. Justice Gorsuch openly doubted that the order could constitutionally reach the children of parents who have built a permanent home in this country, even without status. If those parents are not domiciled here, he asked, then where are they domiciled, given that everyone is domiciled somewhere? He all but conceded that the order could not lawfully reach the very families it was written to target.

“Look past the dueling rationales to a simpler question: who was actually willing to let the order do what it was written to do? Executive Order 14160 was aimed mainly at the children of undocumented parents who have lived here for years. Six Justices struck it outright, five on the Constitution and Kavanaugh on the statute. Gorsuch, who joined the dissent and voted to dissolve the injunction, still doubted in writing that the order could lawfully reach those families. That leaves Thomas and Alito as the only two prepared to defend the heart of it. On the policy that started this, the split was lopsided, seven to two.”

So in the end, it’s really only Thomas and Alito who were 100% on board with Trump’s executive order. Gorsuch would have allowed the order but left open the possibility that he might support birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants who make their permanent home here, whether legally or not (as opposed to “birth tourists”)… which pretty much acknowledges that Trump’s order is unlawfully aimed at many of those it has in its sights.

And in the end, I am on board with the majority, because even if most people originally interpreted “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” to mean “subject to the jurisdiction of the government of where you live” — and even if that’s a reasonable requirement, which I think it is — it’s not what the text of the Constitution ultimately requires. To be “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” simply means to be subject to the laws and authority of the United States. Governmental jurisdiction has to do with the power of governing and legislating, the right of making and enforcing laws. Temporary visitors, whether lawful or illegal, are “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”, because the U.S. government has the right of enforcing laws against them when they’re on U.S. soil. They can be arrested and prosecuted when they’re here. That’s what makes their U.S.-born children birthright citizens under the straightforward meaning of the Constitution’s text.

Thomas’s dissent is reasonable, but I’m a textualist as much as an originalist. Just as the text of the Civil Rights Act protects gay and transgendered employees from employer discrimination — even though that had nothing to do with the statute’s original meaning — so too the Citizenship Clause protects birthright citizenship, irrespective of domicile.

Looking Back on Russell Davies

“Russell Davies didn’t kill Doctor Who. He was hired to captain a ship that Chibnall had already driven directly into an iceberg. You can’t blame the Doctor performing CPR; the brand damage, audience apathy, and structural rot were already fatal by 2022. Russell Davies inherited a sinking ship.” [From a message board on Facebook]

I think that’s about right. Chris Chibnall killed Doctor Who and Russell Davies’ attempt at a resuscitation never stood a chance. In some ways the series went even more off the cliff, especially in Davies’ finales. On the other hand, Davies wasn’t a complete failure. In each of his eight-episode seasons, he gave three episodes that were either decent or very good. And of those six episodes, he himself wrote four of them. So give the guy some credit. Seasons 14-15 had just enough to remind us of the glory days of the first four seasons, unlike seasons 11-13, in which Chibnall sucked every ounce of life from the series.

Of course, Davies was far from infallible, even in back in the golden age. I remember criticizing him heavily during those great years. I want to honor him in the most authentic way I can, by ranking his best stories and then his worst. Of the 40 stories he wrote (across seasons 1-4, and 14-15) I rank his twelve best and his ten worst.

Davies at His Best

Here are my dozen Davies picks, in descending order. The very best are at the top.

Doctor Who S30 E10 "Midnight" Recap - TV Tropes
1. Midnight. Season 4, Episode 10. The best thing Russell Davies ever wrote is by his own admission a low-budget afterthought, asking what would happen if Voyage of the Damned were turned on its head. If that garishly bombastic Christmas special was about feel-good togetherness and people bringing out the best in each other when united against an outside threat, Midnight is about the beast inside everyone bringing out the worst. With claustrophobic intensity and rapid dialogue-fire, the story succeeds by undercutting the Doctor’s hero qualities as he’s left at the mercy of an hysterical mob. Opposite Voyage, where his is melodramatic speech about a being a Time Lord makes the ship’s passengers obey him without question, now it’s precisely his arrogant superiority that shoots him in the ass. The tension and yelling reach a crescendo as the passengers try to kill him and he’s unable to save the day. That’s something unique in the Tennant years. Midnight is Davies’ masterpiece.

Doctor Who unveils chilling trailer for mysterious episode 73 Yards | Radio Times2. 73 Yards. Season 14, Episode 4. Give him this one too. From the manure pile of the last two seasons, he managed to crank out the second best story he ever wrote — and also the second-best Doctor-lite episode of the series (second to only Moffat’s Blink). Right at the start the Doctor vanishes abruptly, leaving Ruby stranded at the top of a cliff in Wales, where she becomes stalked by an old woman who always remains at a constant distance of 73 yards. Anyone who approaches this hag suddenly freaks out and runs away screaming in terror, and never wants anything to do with Ruby again, including her family. The Doctor never reappears and the TARDIS remains inaccessible; Ruby stays trapped in this weird timeline that forces her to live out a life of her worst fear: utter abandonment. The story is a terrifying tale of isolation, and atmospherically it’s right up there with stories like Heaven Sent, Amy’s Choice and Listen. It’s the singular miracle of the Gatwa era, and I was really moved by it.

Doctor Who" Turn Left (TV Episode 2008) - IMDb
3. Turn Left. Season 4, Episode 11. I would have awarded this the #2 slot if not for being weighed down by the baggage of Davies’ previous lemons, especially The Runaway Bride and Partners in Crime, and also the gaping plot hole that if the Doctor died at the start of season three, the world would have retroactively ended in 79 AD since he doesn’t go back to Pompeii and stop the Pyrovile. Aside from those irritations, Turn Left is a fantastic time-warp scenario in which Donna replays her life without ever meeting the Doctor, with catastrophic results for the world. There’s great drama here: the Italian family being taken off to a labor camp, and Donna’s life as a refugee. The return of Rose is handled surprisingly well (since she doesn’t meet the Doctor, thus remaining true to the series-two finale), and Catherine Tate puts in a brilliant performance as she sacrifices herself to turn left and get the world back on track.

Doctor Who" Utopia (TV Episode 2007) - David Tennant as The Doctor - IMDb
4. Utopia. Season 3, Episode 11. This is a grim look at a dying humanity trillions of years in the future, and its desperate quest to seek out a mythic utopian planet. The plot then turns into a race against time as the professor spearheading this mission turns out to be the Master, who shockingly — even for the Master — murders his assistant and hijacks the Doctor’s TARDIS. I’ve never been fond of the Master as a villain, except for the decaying creature of Tom Baker’s era, because it was so gothic and intentionally anti-Master. But Derek Jacobi is admittedly a great Master incarnation, and it’s a shame he so quickly regenerated into the clown played by John Simm. Jacobi is positively terrifying in the role — even more terrifying than the cannibalistic scavengers that reign over this dark planet at the end of the universe.

10 Years of New Who – My top 10 episodes of modern Doctor Who! – Vickster51's Culture Corner
5. Bad Wolf/Parting of the Ways. Season 1, Episodes 12 & 13. In the beginning Davies created a world of good things. Like finales. The season-one endgame is an absolute smasher. It involves people trapped in reality television where everything is a game and losers get vaporized. When the Doctor, Rose, and Captain Jack play for their lives they discover the outfit is a front for an impending Dalek invasion of earth. There are awesome sights here — zillions of levitating and flying Daleks, chanting horrible mantras in defense of the Dalek God, “Worship him!”, “Do not interrupt!” — though also some whacking plot holes. Most obvious being when the Daleks invade the station, which they no longer need, to stop the Doctor. Since they are melting entire continents on Earth, they could do the same to the station. But that wouldn’t allow the Doctor to face the moral dilemma demanded by Davies’ script: use the delta wave and kill the Daleks, but also every form of life on Earth; or let the Daleks live so that they can kill every form of life on Earth, which is exactly what they’re already in the process of doing by melting continents. Aside from plot blunders like this, the story is fantastic.

Doctor Who: "Doomsday" Review
6. Army of Ghosts/Doomsday. Season 2, Episodes 12 & 13. The season-two finale is the ultimate wet dream: the two most popular Who villains invading earth and fighting each other to see who’s best. It’s a rare example of fanwank that works (unlike The Stolen Earth/Journey’s End, about which I have plenty to say below). The appearance of the Daleks caught me way off-guard, and it’s one of the best cliffhangers of the show’s history. And I love the Cult of Skaro: four elite Daleks with actual names, designed to think as the enemy thinks. A great moment is when the Cyberleader proposes an alliance with the Cult, is refused, and demands: “You would destroy five million Cybermen with four Daleks?” To which the response, of course, is that they would destroy five million Cybermen with but a single Dalek, for “this is not a war, this is pest control”. Rose’s departure is a tear-jerker that rivals the Grey Havens ending of Lord of the Rings. It wrecked me.

Doctor Who" Tooth and Claw | Planet Claire Quotes
7. Tooth and Claw. Season 2, Episode 2. Gothic historicals aren’t Davies’ usual thing, but he did a great job with Tooth and Claw. A werewolf story in Doctor Who was long overdue, and you can’t do better for setting than the Scottish highlands. Queen Victoria steals the show (the actress is brilliant), and the ninja monks are a fun bonus. The monks’ agenda is to get the Queen bitten so they can rule the British empire through her, though it’s never quite clear whether they’re worshiping the werewolf or using it for their own ends. The ending is priceless, when the Queen rewards the Doctor with a knighthood, and then promptly banishes him, “not amused” by his heathen nature.

Doctor Who “Lux” Trailer Previews Toon Terror https://t.co/yZuKGAmbfj #DoctorWho
8. Lux. Season 15, Episode 2. This story proved that Davies hadn’t entirely lost his mojo in his second era. Here the Doctor and Belinda arrive in 1952 Miami (two black people in the segregation era) to investigate an abandoned cinema. Movie-goers have vanished in this cinema, because an animated entity has trapped them inside a cartoon film reality. It’s a bold premise and it’s loads of fun watching the Doctor and Belinda becoming cartoons and trying to figure out how to escape Lux’s traps – like acquiring physical dimensions by showing emotional dimensions — and the meta-commentary about fandom is a plus, as when the Doctor and Belinda find themselves in a room of Doctor Who fans. Davies was clearly trying to revivify some of the magic of Love and Monsters (immediately below) and it worked very well.

Doctor Who: Love And Monsters (2006) Review | The Cool Kat's Reviews
9. Love and Monsters. Season 2, Episode 10. I’ve said before that it took me many years to get closure on this Doctor-lite story. When I first saw it after the epic double bill in which the Doctor and Rose show down Satan under a black hole, I felt slapped in the face. This (so I thought) was a fucking mockery of Doctor Who. But no, it got better and better with subsequent viewings. Around the slapstick comedy run strong themes – loneliness, despair, broken relationships, and fan worship. It’s an incredibly bleak tale, ending in the nasty demise of the entire LINDA team at the hands of the Absorbaloff, not to mention the tragic story behind Elton’s visions of the Doctor. These are geeks who need the mystery and the magic of the Doctor to fulfill their lives, which dooms them to misery and a terrible fate. The cartoonish monster and silly tone complement this rather than clash with it (as I used to think), given the theme of Doctor Who fandom that Davies is so clearly poking fun at as he explores serious themes.

The Christmas Invasion · Doctor Who Specials • Christmas Special · TARDIS Guide
10. The Christmas Invasion. Season 2, Special. The first and only good Christmas special written by Davies is a fabulous introduction to Tennant’s Doctor. The substandard invasion-of-earth baggage works for rather than against it, even the ludicrous killer-Christmas trees. The dramatic tension builds well in the first half due to the Doctor being out of commission as he recovers from regenerating, and when he finally emerges from those TARDIS doors, we want to clap like kids. He gets in a good sword fight with the alien-king before banishing his race from earth, and the best scene is his hand getting chopped off then immediately regenerating. And the “Song for Ten” at the end is perfect.

Dot and Bubble" | Disney Plus Press
11. Dot and Bubble. Season 14, Episode 5. Black Mirror is my favorite TV series, so how can I not adore Dot and Bubble? Here we have people so buried in their social media bubbles that they literally can’t see what’s physically around them. Not even when people are being devoured by monsters, whether on the streets or in work office spaces. They need an automated voice to steer them as they walk from one place to another. The Doctor and Ruby manage to liberate a young narcissist, who slowly learns to step out of her bubble, but like other members of this society she’s a rather terrible person (a posh white supremacist), and in the end she can only show contempt for the Doctor instead of the gratitude he deserves. This is so Black Mirror and full of deliciously biting satire in every frame.

The Flood | Explore the Whoniverse | Doctor Who
12. Waters of Mars. Post-season 4 special. This story works on two levels, the first completely successfully, the second not as much. The straightforward level is a base-under-siege in the classic sense, as crew members on Mars are being infected by water that turns them into lethal zombies. The other level attempts to explore the Doctor’s dark side as he violates the laws of time. The problem is that his crime doesn’t seem particularly reprehensible, because there’s no convincing reason why the deaths of this particular crew on Mars are so unalterable as “fixed points” in time. If Adelaide’s death is supposed to inspire more outer-space missions, that inspiration could just as easily come from some result in a new timeline where she lives. But this story is suspenseful and scary enough that the weakness is almost invisible.

Davies at His Worst

Here what I judge to be the worst Davies stories. The top-10 worst, meaning the very worst are at the top.

N055 Journey's End - Who Back When | A Doctor Who Podcast
1. The Stolen Earth/Journey’s End. Season 4, Episodes 12 & 13.  I reserve a rating of 0 jelly babies to something so bad that it’s not only bad but goes out of its way to be bad, as if — and please excuse this, but there’s no polite way of conveying — the writer is trying to defecate down our throats. And make no mistake, Davies drops one feces-ball after another in the season-4 finale: a bogus regeneration, Donna’s non-death, and to top it all off (I still can’t believe Davies did this) a duplicate Doctor to give Rose her dream-lover after all. Oh, and the the TARDIS tows planet Earth. There’s not even a body count; the Daleks don’t kill anyone (except for the resurrecting Captain Jack, which doesn’t count). Honestly, if Russell Davies is going to trap the Doctor’s best companion in a parallel universe and say she’ll never see the Doctor again, he should have the balls to follow through with that. If he sets us up with repeated predictions about another companion dying, he should bloody well deliver on that promise. Does he think we’re all five-year olds who can’t handle good storytelling? Classic Who never copped out in so many ways; never pulled punches with body counts; never betrayed the audience so aggressively in every other frame. But even for the new series, this represented a new abyss. And poor Davros for getting saddled with the worst story of all the Doctor Who eras, since the show began in 1963.

Doctor Who: The End Of Time (2009) Review | The Cool Kat's Reviews2. The End of Time. Post-season 4 special. I don’t even like thinking about this one. David Tennant did such a great job as Doctor Who and deserved better than a terrible swan song that not only brings back a comic-book Master, but also resurrects the Time Lords in a cheap plot, while making sure to plumb the worst aspects of kitchen-sink opera with Donna and her family. Payoffs are abysmal and the trappings are as bad as they get in a Davies script, from a medical fix-it machine, to silly cactus-people, to the Master flying with his bare hands, to a climax which can barely be called that — just the three leads talking to each other in a ballroom. Things get even worse in the long and saccharine denouement, as the Doctor revisits all his previous companions before he regenerates, and while Davies is obviously trying to honor Tennant, the result is oppressively self-indulgent. It’s a horrible end to his era, but everything I unfortunately expected.

Doctor Who: Sutekh Is Not the First God the Doctor Fought Under Russell T Davies
3. Empire of Death. Season 14, Episode 8. This one got me so angry that my hands were shaking. Whenever Davies involves arch-villains from the classic era (Davros, above at #1, the Master, above at #2, and now Sutekh) he aims for a finale that promises a huge payoff but delivers 100% crap — easy-outs, resets, and endless hand-waving. Sutekh is terrible in this story. He’s nothing like the most perilous entity the Doctor ever faced in Pyramids of Mars. Here he’s is defeated by (wait for it) a rope that Ruby leashes around him — somehow without her getting killed or paralyzed — while the Doctor has a convenient whistle that can control the TARDIS and activate the laser trap to kill the Harbinger. We are also to believe Sutekh has been “riding the spine of the TARDIS” all these years since Pyramids of Mars, and never once was detected by any other incarnation of the Doctor, nor by the TARDIS itself. It’s pure balls, and proof that Davies still hasn’t recovered his early talent for writing smashing finales like Parting of the Ways and Doomsday. He’d prove that in the next season as well…

The Reality War (TV story) - Tardis Wiki
4. The Reality War. Season 15, Episode 8. … with a mess so ungodly I hardly know where to begin. Maybe with the big news that Time Lords are are unfertile; that there’s no such thing as a Time Lord child. So the Ninth Doctor was spitballing about being a father and grandfather; the Tenth was hallucinating when he counted every child lost on Gallifrey during the Time War; the Master lied when he said he was driven mad as a child starring into the Time Vortex. And Susan? The Doctor’s granddaughter? She must have never existed. As for the plot, it’s just Davies masturbating with greatest hits, returning characters who are there for show. Rani summons Omega, who in turn eats her in the blink of an eye, and then Omega is dispensed with in another blink of an eye. I can’t even comment on the significance of Belinda’s baby Poppy, because I’m not sure whether Poppy really exists. I will comment however on the Doctor’s regeneration into Rose Tyler, because, Christ on a crutch, this, if nothing else, shows why the TV series needs a long hiatus.

BBC One - Doctor Who (2005–2022), The Runaway Bride, The Runaway Bride
5. The Runaway Bride. Season 3, Christmas special. After the perfection of season two and Rose’s heartbreaking closure, we got kicked in the teeth with this dross. It dumps a screeching bride inside the TARDIS and a pantload of nonsense that’s supposed to serve as a Christmas special, but the only thing special is the all-time low for Doctor Who, as it was easily the worst story of the new series up to this point. (The Dalek double-bill in Manhattan would soon rectify this.) The bride has been infected with a strange energy (that whisked her to the TARDIS) as part of an alien plan to take over earth, and that’s only the start of the silliness. It foreshadowed Donna’s return in season four as a regular TARDIS companion. Merry goddamn Christmas.

Adipose | Explore the Whoniverse | Doctor Who
6. Partners in Crime. Season 4, Episode 1. Speaking of which. Donna actually turned out to be an awesome TARDIS companion — once she got over the hurtle of this atrocious season opener. She reprises her role as the screeching fishwife in Runaway Bride, in a joke of an episode in which Doctor Who meets Pokemon, or the invasion of the marshmallows, take your pick. The menaces are pieces of human fat, and the plot centers around a company in present-day Britain that’s selling diet pills which make body fat come alive, break off in chunks, and kill the host. Now, I will admit that I love the way Davies milks so much fun out of obesity (he would have never written this story in the woke era of seasons 14-15), but that only goes so far. Overall, this is really dumbing down to an all-time low.

Ray Hardgrit's Sci-Fi Adventures: Doctor Who (2005) 1-05: World War Three
7. Aliens of London/World War III. Season 1, Episodes 4 & 5. This story wins the award for most poorly written opening to any Doctor Who story in the classic or new era. The intro has nothing to do with the story at hand; it’s just a soap-opera throwaway as Rose’s mother shrieks lines in a voice that makes me want to kick her face in. When we finally get to the story, it’s yet another in a long line of Davies’ invasion-of-earth cheese-fests, and it doesn’t help that things don’t get any scarier than humanoid pigs and lame Slitheen. There’s one thing, however, that admittedly gratifies me: the dominating theme of flatulence. This is an exceedingly guilty pleasure on my part, but farting aliens entertain me on the basest possible level, especially the fat woman played by Annette Badland, and her gleeful expressions as she continually breaks wind. Davies knew how to have fun even when he was writing the shittiest stories conceivable.

Can anyone tell me what stroller brand is used in this episode of doctor who? : r/find
8. Space Babies. Season 14, Episode 1. I’m sure there are fans out there who think talking babies are cute and swell, but I’m not one of them. Space Babies made my piles burst, truth be told, even though the story contains a few elements that gratify me. The premise involves a bunch of intelligent babies crewing a spaceship; they’ve been born because they were forced to be born and no one cares for them. Yes, that’s anti-abortionist politics, but it doesn’t feel preachy or heavy-handed, and I rather like it. My favorite part is the Bogeyman monster, who is made out of boogers from the babies. Someone must have had me in mind when creating that beast. But aside from these shallow gratifications, Space Babies is really just Davies taking the piss.

Doctor Who" Voyage of the Damned (TV Episode 2007) - IMDb
9. The Voyage of the Damned. Season 4, Christmas special. Damned in every sense, this Christmas special offends almost as badly as The Runaway Bride. The Doctor finds himself on a floating spaceship, caught between corporate greed, sabotage, and robotic angels armed with killer halos. It sounds impressive but it’s entirely not: there’s comedy in every line, but nothing funny; noise and action in every other sequence, but no excitement. It’s a sign of how bad a story is when the body count is so commendably high (as in classic Who) but you just don’t care about who dies. Ironically, we have this episode to thank for Midnight, the inverse story in which Davies wrote this one all over again but did everything right for a change. I still wonder if he was making fun of himself and produced a work of art by accident.

Doctor Who 3.13 – Last of the Time Lords – Fire Breathing Dimetrodon Time
10. Last of the Time Lords. Season 3, Episode 12. After the excellent Utopia (the fourth best thing Davies ever wrote) and the decent Sound of Drums, Davies veered off into melodrama, heavy-handed Christian allegory, and a cheap reset. The Master deserved to go out better than this, though the final moment between him and the Doctor — who begs him to regenerate and “not leave him alone” — is admittedly moving, and encapsulates an entire history of these adversaries being addicted to each other even in despite. But the Doctor being angelically restored to life by having the world’s population basically pray him back into existence is something Davies had never pulled out of his ass up to this point. This was the episode — at the end of season 3 — where the rot really set in for Davies, and it foreshadowed the disastrous endgame of season four. Davies could no longer write epic story arcs. From here on, he would shine only with tightly-focused character stories (Midnight, Turn Left, Wild Blue Yonder, 73 Yards). 

See also: Looking Back on Steven Moffat.

Looking Back on the Time Lord: Fifteen Seasons of Six Doctors

This was long overdue: The BBC Halts Doctor Who Indefinitely After Woke Storylines Turn Into Toxic Disaster And Ratings Nightmare. I stopped watching Doctor Who after season 10, and these ratings probably give you some indication as to why.

When I say I stopped watching the series, I mean that I stopped watching for enjoyment; I was no longer looking forward to each season or following the episodes upon their release. I eventually caught up on them for review purposes, and it was punishment to wade through. Seasons 11-13 (Jodie Whitaker’s Doctor) were thoroughly awful and seasons 14 and 15 (Ncuti Gatwa’s Doctor, not ranked in the above chart) got even worse though with a handful of decent exceptions. The show needs a long hiatus — perhaps as long as the 16-year gap of 1989-2005 — to regroup and come back with something fresh.

So to celebrate what is hopefully the end of the “New Doctor Who” era, I present my updated ranking that covers the fifteen seasons that ran from 2005-2025. (I ranked the best of the classic stories here.) These are my favorite 50 stories out of the 172 total, and as you might guess, there’s not a single story from the Chibnall era (Whitaker’s Doctor) that makes my cut. That’s not a reflection on Whitaker, but on Chibnall who killed the series. Russell Davies did his best to breathe life back into it, and while he failed miserably overall, there are at least a handful of stories from seasons 14 and 15 that find a home on this list.

1. Heaven Sent. 5+ jelly babies. The lackluster season 9 at least produced this masterpiece. The Doctor finds himself alone in a torture castle which has apparently claimed many victims, but it turns out all the skulls are his own. He’s trapped in his own playground of torment, enduring agony literally a billion times over, each time reborn in the grief he last knew (his best friend Clara dying). That’s as close a realization of eternal hell I’ve ever seen depicted on screen, especially since he always reaches a point where he can remember all the previous times he was killed at the Veil’s hands. Some of the Veil scenes still give me a heart attack on later viewings. In the otherwise lackluster ninth season, Heaven Sent redeems it, and it’s also a beautiful postmortem character piece, showing how deeply the Doctor has internalized Clara, to the extent that she “speaks from the grave” to him, which allows him to keep him going instead of giving up like anyone else would in an awful situation like this.

2. The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit. 5+ jelly babies. A no-holds-barred epic that comes in the middle of the season, trailing a fantastic werewolf story, a wonderful return of Sarah Jane Smith, a dark fairy-tale, and an amazing reboot of the Cybermen in a parallel Earth. The devil outdid them all in the deepest space and death trap, stealing shamelessly from Alien, The Abyss, and Robots of Death, yet never feeling like a cheat. The dread and claustrophobia don’t let up, with Rose and crew battling Ood on the sanctuary base above, and the Doctor freefalling blindly into Satan’s Pit below. We haven’t seen the Doctor show down a godlike adversary since he went against Sutekh in Pyramids of Mars and the ancient evil in The Curse of Fenric, and this double bill ranks right alongside them. When I finally caught my breath at the end, I remember thinking, “Okay, it’s official: we’re in a new golden age of Doctor Who.”

3. Human Nature/Family of Blood. 5+ jelly babies. Some consider this the best story, even over Blink, and you can easily make a case for it. Drama doesn’t go deeper than making a Time Lord human, taking away his TARDIS, and erasing all memories of his true identity. And it’s really a story that only Paul Cornell could pull off so that it plays like something adapted out of high-brow literature. The Doctor makes the sacrifice of becoming human out of kindness (preferring evasion over a grim sentence he’s forced to carry out on the aliens in the end), but ends up bringing horror and death to an innocent village. David Tennant gets to show off new acting skills, as he’s a completely new character, emotionally vulnerable, and devoid of the flippant sarcasm that defines his role as the Doctor. When the jig is finally up and he refuses to change back into a Time Lord, having fallen in love with a fellow schoolteacher, he delivers a performance so painful that we almost don’t want the Doctor back anymore than he does.

A-Christmas-Carol-doctor-who-17929570-1280-7204. A Christmas Carol. 5+ jelly babies. I never wanted to see holiday specials after the stream of Davies-fiascoes, convinced that The Christmas Invasion was a one-off exception. Not only did Moffat prove me wrong, he produced a stunning masterpiece. A Christmas Carol is almost as good as the Dickens classic itself. The sets and lighting with purplish-black hues set a perfect tone, haunting yet mystical, and Michael Gambon as the tormented Scrooge character is one of the best guest performances of the new series. The Doctor’s unethically manipulations in trying to save his soul remind of the seventh Doctor: there’s no reason he couldn’t have gone back in time to prevent the Starliner from taking off in the first place instead of jumping through hoops to rewrite a man’s life on the slim hope that he’ll change his mind. He seems to derive fulfilment out of using people as pawns, rewriting their lives — as the Scrooge character rightly charges — “to suit himself”. The tragedy is foreordained: Abigail must die, and her final sky-ride marks a perfect closing.

5. Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead. 5 jelly babies. As a librarian I adore this one; hell, I dream of planet-sized libraries. The menace is bloody chilling: shadows that kill on contact and strip flesh to the bone, hard to distinguish from the garden variety, and as hard to evade as the weeping angels from Blink. And of course this is where the Doctor first meets River Song, though for her it’s their last meeting, and she dies with appropriate tragedy. True, she awakens in the matrix to continue in some sort of metaphysical existence, but at least her demise is permanent on the physical side of things, which is more than can be said for the deaths in The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances. Even if the epilogue waxes schmaltzy, this is Moffat at his best — the best two-part story he has written, with the first half being a nail-biting horror piece, the second taking us inside the disturbing matrix where Donna is married and has kids and no memory of anything else.

6. Dalek. 5 jelly babies. This is the story that convinced me of the potentials of the new series. When I’m crying over a Dalek, something unprecedented is going on, and what’s brilliant is the way this episode inverts the legendary Genesis of the Daleks with just as much economy in the span of 45 minutes. The tortured Dalek draws not an ounce of sympathy from the Doctor, who has to be stopped by Rose from blasting it to atoms — the exact opposite of Sarah who once urged genocide against his pacifism — all climaxing in a weird “E.T.” moment as the creature forms a strange bond with her. If anyone had described the plot to me in advance, I would have dismissed it as a sentimental betrayal of what Doctor Who is about, but Dalek is transcendent, and the second best Dalek story (after Genesis) in the entire history of the show.

blink7. Blink. 5 jelly babies. The legendary fan favorite, loved even by those who aren’t fans of the show. The weeping angels are the best aliens of the new era and the most frightening. Most remarkable is the status this story has achieved despite, or perhaps because of, being Doctor-lite. It’s a home run when the Doctor can be sidelined for the better, and of course Sally Sparrow is a fantastic character, possibly the best guest performance of the entire series. Moffat is at his best playing with time paradoxes in Blink, the highlight being the DVD Easter Egg scene, as the Doctor uses a copy of the transcript Lawrence is writing to have a conversation across time, which in fact generates the script. And it takes pure genius to cap it all off with a final scene that has absolutely nothing to do with the story, yet everything, designed to make kids afraid of statues.

8. The Girl in the Fireplace. 5 jelly babies. This creep show and romantic tragedy captures the innocence of The Chronicles of Narnia and horror of Pan’s Labyrinth to produce something rather unique in Doctor Who, something I wish we’d see more often. Moffat must have had me in mind when writing the spaceship powered by human body parts — especially the beating heart in the interior smelling like cooking meat — and the demented robots who believe that a certain woman’s are needed just because the ship is named after her. Madame de Pompadour herself is brilliantly scripted, making it easy to accept that she could fall in love with The Doctor she has only known for fleeting moments throughout her life, since he arrives out of nowhere like a mythical protector in times of need. When he comes the final time to find her dead and gone, and her letter waiting, it hits me every time. This is pure magic, pure storytelling.

9. Amy’s Choice. 5 jelly babies. By far the weirdest story of the new series, an actual nightmare that evokes David Lynch. It finds the Doctor, Amy, and Rory flicking back and forth between two scenarios, one of which they are told is a dream they are sharing, the other reality. To die in the dream will cause them to wake up in reality for good, and to die in reality will cause them to really die; so they must choose wisely. The choice, however, Amy’s choice, ultimately boils down to a choice between the Doctor and Rory, and I love the twist that the frozen TARDIS circling a cold star is as much a dream as the idyllic countryside where feeble grandmas are getting whacked by crowbars and thrown off the roofs of houses. The perversity is grand, but at heart the story is ingeniously introspective, a welcome rarity in Doctor Who, and a true work of art.

10. Father’s Day. 5 jelly babies. Paul Cornell proved at once that tear-jerkers can work outside the cloying sentimentality of Russell Davies. The plot is simple, the resolution predictable, but only in way the tragedy often is; the drama is brilliant, the acting Oscar-worthy. Rose persuades the Doctor to take her back in time to when her father was killed by a motorist, and despite being forbidden to alter the past, she saves him anyway, ushering in nothing less than Armageddon. Everywhere on earth people are suddenly assaulted by Reapers, winged parasites that act like antibodies, destroying everything in wounded time until the paradox is gone. The Doctor nearly disowns and abandons Rose, and it’s one of Eccleston’s harshest and finest moments. But in the end the Doctor and Rose are closer than before despite (no: because of) their falling out, after the painful lesson that triumph costs.

11. The Eleventh Hour. 5 jelly babies. Yes, it follows the tired invasion-of-earth format, but does it so goddamn well it turns out a classic. The high point is the tempus-fugit with seven-year old Amelia Pond, who is established as the “girl who waited”. As in The Girl in the Fireplace, the Doctor establishes a close connection with a young girl, leaves suddenly thinking he’ll be “right back”, but returns many years later to a grown woman who believes she had imagined him as a child. On the face of it, The Eleventh Hour is an invasion story in which the Doctor saves the entire planet in the space of twenty minutes, and by (of all things) using a laptop to spread a global virus. But it’s an incredibly fun ride with brilliantly established characters, and it gets better literally every time I watch it. The ending is pure magic, as we see the new TARDIS interior through the eyes of Amy Pond, and are left just as awed.

12. Midnight. 5 jelly babies. The best thing Russell Davies ever wrote is by his own admission a low-budget afterthought, asking what would happen if Voyage of the Damned were turned on its head. If the garishly bombastic Christmas special was about feel-good togetherness and people bringing out the best in each other when united against an outside threat, Midnight is about the beast inside everyone bringing out the worst. With the claustrophobic intensity of United 93 and rapid dialogue-fire of Twelve Angry Men, the story succeeds by undercutting the Doctor’s hero qualities as he’s left at the mercy of an hysterical mob. Opposite Voyage, where his is melodramatic speech about a being a Time Lord makes the ship’s passengers obey him without question, now it’s precisely his arrogant superiority that shoots him in the ass. The tension and yelling reach a crescendo as the passengers try to kill him and he’s unable to save the day. That’s something unique in the Tennant years.

13. The Doctor’s Wife. 5 jelly babies. Getting Neil Gaiman to write for Doctor Who was a coup, and true to expectations he delivered a whopper. This story takes the living essence of the TARDIS, pours it into a human being, gives it voice, and explores its (her) relationship with the Doctor. Idris is a spellbinding character, constantly speaking out of tense as she lives moments of the Doctor’s life in non-linear fashion, and insisting on an equal playing field by insisting that it was she in fact who stole him and not the other way around. In a perfectly geeky way, the TARDIS gives the Doctor what no other “woman” can (not even River Song), constant adventure, which he gives her back in turn. When Idris finally has to die and they both start breaking down, I was doing the same. And those aren’t even the best parts, which go to Amy and Rory trapped inside the darkened TARDIS robbed of its soul, and tormented by a voice out of hell.

lastchristmas14. Last Christmas. 5 jelly babies. The other top-notch holiday special, after A Christmas Carol. It’s a terrifying story, though you’d never predict it from the first fifteen minutes. Santa Claus in Doctor Who seems like jumping the shark. So of course this had better be a dream, and the trope works, because as in Inception, the nightmares impact reality in deadly earnest. You can die in these dreams, age monstrously, or never wake up. The dream crabs are the scariest aliens seen since the weeping angels, and in this case you should look away from them and blink, and stop thinking about them altogether. They are the facehuggers of Alien, “Inceptionized” to weaponize dreams against people as the crabs feed on the host’s brain. When everyone’s subconscious fights back, it comes in the form of Santa Claus, and the juxtaposition of a fairy-tale figure with lethal horrors tumbles into a work of emotional artistry.

15. 73 Yards. 5 jelly babies. The best story of the Gatwa era is all but devoid of Gatwa. The Doctor disappears in the blink of an eye, leaving Ruby stranded at the top of a cliff in Wales, where she becomes stalked by an old woman who always remains at a constant distance of 73 yards. Anyone who approaches this woman suddenly freaks out and runs away from Ruby screaming in terror, and never wants anything to do with Ruby again, including her family. The Doctor never reappears, the TARDIS remains inaccessible, leaving Ruby in this weird timeline that forces her to live out a life of her worst fear: utter abandonment. 73 Yards is a terrifying tale of isolation, and atmospherically it’s right up there with stories like Heaven Sent, Amy’s Choice and Listen. It’s the singular miracle of the RTD2 era, and I was really moved by it.

16. The Rise of the Cybermen/Age of Steel. 5 jelly babies. This one is vastly underrated. It’s about as strong as Father’s Day to which it serves as a sort of sequel. Not only is it the best Cybermen story of all time (though let’s face it, they were never used very well in the classic period), it’s before that a parallel-Earth story, like the Pertwee classic Inferno, in which all bets are off as we get to see familiar faces die (Jackie), others beat hasty retreats when confronted with “relatives” they never knew (Pete), and then a major character from our world choose exile when he finally realizes his girlfriend will always choose the Doctor over him (Mickey). Much as I loathed Mickey up to this point, I had to admit this story justified his existence, and his farewell to Rose was really moving. As for the Cybermen, the Davros-type genius who creates them is a ranting megalomaniac and alone worth the price of admission.

17. The Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone. 5 jelly babies. This two-parter is to Blink as Aliens is to Alien: bigger, longer, more. The weeping angels are back in droves, faced off by an army of priestly soldiers who aren’t nearly as equipped as they think. Like Ripley, the Doctor understands the menace better than anyone, though not always quite enough, and the angels have some alarming new tricks, like breaking peoples’ heads open in order to reanimate their consciousness. In terms of suspense, I hadn’t been kept on the edge of my seat so much since the Ood closed in on the space crew back in The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit; and as in that story the body count is high. Amy almost dies, and when she says, “I’m scared, Doctor,” our hero returns callously, “Of course you’re scared, you’re dying, shut up.” Amusingly, when all is said and done, she wants to jump in the sack and fuck his brains out in one of the best epilogues of the new series.

18. Fires of Pompeii. 5 jelly babies. The most ambitious historical of the new series achieves greatness with everything — drama, horror, tragedy, time paradoxes, and not a minute of screen time wasted. It tackles the dilemma of whether or not history should be altered to save lives, and the Doctor’s struggle to pull the lever recalls Tom Baker’s agony over whether or not to change history by committing genocide on the Daleks. The Sibylline Sisterhood is another throw-back to the Hinchcliffe era (The Brain of Morbius), and half of the fourth-season’s special effects budget seems to have gone into creating the Pyrovile (stone-magma creatures resembling Balrogs) which the priestesses are hideously transforming into. That the Doctor is the one to blow up Vesuvius and murder thousands is genius, and if you aren’t weeping with Donna at the end you’re made of stone yourself.

19. Vincent and the Doctor. 5 jelly babies. By portraying Van Gogh as a tormented genius who sees things others are blind to, this story is able to explore artistic insight on both literal and metaphysical levels. It represents the final year of Van Gogh’s life, recreating various sites painted by the artist, the paintings themselves in arresting color, and his disturbing fits of manic depression. The theme of vision permeates almost every frame, and on the literal level this plays out in the attack of the Krafayis, an invisible giant bird-reptile that Vincent fends off entertainingly with long wooden poles and armchairs, while the Doctor gets slammed against walls by its tail. On the deeper level, Van Gogh sees things in nature’s midst and people’s souls. And of course, the ending hits hard: the Doctor brings Vincent to a museum in the present, where the artist breaks down in front of his paintings that are now famous.

20. School Reunion. 4 ½ jelly babies. The return of Sarah Jane Smith is a precious episode. Three decades after The Hand of Fear, she’s furious that the Doctor never came back for her and becomes jealous over Rose. Sarah is more than just a returning companion to please old fans; she’s used very effectively to put Rose’s relationship to the Doctor into perspective, and to call into the question the way he eventually discards his companions. K-9 is back too. Around the fun nostalgia revolves a plot involving batlike aliens who have taken over a school and are turning children into geniuses to help them solve an equation that unlocks complete control of time and space. A powerful concept like this really deserved more attention than serving as a backdrop to the return of old friends, but this is still a terrific story. The Doctor gets in a particularly compelling moment when he considers using the paradigm to save Gallifrey, and Sarah reminds him that pain and loss are essential in the course of evolution.

21. Turn Left. 4 ½ jelly babies. This one could have placed in my top-15 if not for being weighed down by the baggage of Davies’ previous lemons, especially The Runaway Bride and Partners in Crime, and also the gaping plot hole that if the Doctor died at the start of season three, the world would have retroactively ended in 79 AD since he doesn’t go back to Pompeii and stop the Pyrovile. For the most part Davies manages to pull off a compelling time-warp scenario in which Donna replays her life without ever meeting the Doctor, with catastrophic results for the world. There’s great drama here: the Italian family being taken off to a “labor camp”, and Donna’s life as a refugee. The return of Rose is handled surprisingly well (since she doesn’t meet the Doctor, thus remaining true to the series-two finale), and Catherine Tate puts in a hell of a performance as she sacrifices herself to turn left and get the world back on track.

22. 42. 4 ½ jelly babies. Yes, this is a complete rip-off of The Impossible Planet/Satan Pit, but I’m a sucker for spaceship-in-distress stories where sweating crew members fight hopeless odds, race against time, and get picked off one by one. Here the Doctor and his companion appear on a ship which is going to crash into a sun in 42 minutes. Like last time, they get cut off from the TARDIS almost as soon as they step out of it (thus preventing a convenient rescue and escape), and just as before, we get possessed crew members (this time by an angry sun), suffocating claustrophobia, and the Doctor going EVA. Because the drama unfolds in real time (Doctor Who episodes are 45 minutes long), and punctuated by a nerve-racking countdown, it keeps your blood racing. 42 may be derivative but I’ve no complaints about it at all.

FLatline-aliens23. Flatline. 4 ½ jelly babies. This is what Fear Her aspired to be. It rapes the TARDIS by shrinking its outer dimensions and leaving the Doctor trapped inside. This leaves Clara to assume the his role (which she does explicitly: Rose’s such role in Fear Her was implied) and save the day. The story serves as a meta-commentary on what it means to be the Doctor and make difficult decisions. As he says at the end, smothering the wind in Clara’s sails: “You were an excellent Doctor, Clara, and goodness had nothing to do with it.” The two-dimensional aliens are downright terrorizing, even when they manifest in jittering 3D, for being so outside our frame of reference. They kill people (and there are serious body counts here) by reducing them to obscene “pictures” on a wall — a diagram of a nervous system here, a network of skin cells there.

24. Listen. 4 ½ jelly babies. Only Steven Moffat would take this question seriously: why does every kid dream at night of something hiding under the bed? Because something is really there. He has come up with some of the best monsters in the new series. When you look at the Weeping Angels, they freeze into statues; when you stop looking at the Silence, you forget they exist. Listen offers a new menace with camouflage — creatures evolved to be perfectly hidden, so that sentient beings are never truly alone. But we don’t find out if these creatures really exist. My take is that they don’t, and that this story is really about the Doctor’s mental breakdown. But it’s incredibly atmospheric and scary, with scenes evoking Utopia (the end of the universe), and Midnight (creatures unseen). Some call Listen a masterpiece, and it’s damn near close, but I think the fact that the monsters aren’t real reduces its stature somewhat, which is why it’s outside my top 20.

25. Extremis. 4 ½ jelly babies. For each of Peter Capaldi’s seasons Steven Moffat wrote a risky story that paid dividends. In season eight it was Listen (about the Doctor’s mental breakdown). In season nine it was Heaven Sent (about the Doctor’s billion-year solitude in a clockwork prison). In season ten he took the biggest risk of all with Extremis, which is about the Doctor who doesn’t even exist, as he’s outsmarting alien invaders. As in Heaven Sent, the story is built around a whopping twist: we’ve been watching an iteration of the Doctor, rather than the definitive version of the Doctor himself, and what “the Doctor” does when he’s confronted with a nearly unsolvable problem. An alien menace has been running simulations of Earth in order to simulate their invasion, and the Doctor (who we learn in the end is a virtual-reality Doctor) is only helping the enemy while trying to thwart him. Inside the matrix, a document hidden in the Vatican is supposed to reveal the secret to defeat this alien menace; all it does is make smart and intelligent people kill themselves. The reason is because their deaths aren’t suicides, but “escapes”, as they delete themselves from the matrix so they cannot provide the enemy with any more useful intelligence. As the Doctor says in his moment of revelation: “It’s like Super Mario figuring out what’s going on and deleting himself from the game.” I love Extremis to pieces, and there is something seriously subversive in the idea of the Vatican discovering that evil forces have complete control over the world, and that this revelation drives intelligent men of faith to commit suicide.

26. Utopia. 4 ½ jelly babies. For purposes of this list, I consider the season-three finale to be three separate stories, because they stand on their own and rate very differently. Utopia is a work of excellence. Sound of Drums is decent. Last of the Time Lords is garbage. They comprise a trilogy because the same villain is involved, but the setting and plots are radically different. Utopia is the gem — a dark and compelling look at a dying humanity trillions of years in the future, and its desperate quest to seek out a mythic utopian planet. The plot then turns into a race against time as the professor spearheading this mission turns out to be the Master, who shockingly — even for the Master — murders his assistant and hijacks the Doctor’s TARDIS. Derek Jacobi is the best Master incarnation (after the decaying creature of Tom Baker’s era), and it’s a shame he so quickly regenerated into the clown played by John Simm. Jacobi is positively terrifying in the role.

27. Bad Wolf/Parting of the Ways. 4 ½ jelly babies. The season-one finale is a smasher. It involves people trapped in reality television where everything is a game and losers get vaporized. When the Doctor, Rose, and Captain Jack play for their lives they discover the outfit is a front for an impending Dalek invasion of earth. There are awesome sights here — zillions of levitating and flying Daleks, chanting horrible mantras in defense of the Dalek God, “Worship him!”, “Do not interrupt!” — but also some whacking plot holes. Most obvious being when the Daleks invade the station, which they no longer need, to stop the Doctor. Since they are melting entire continents on Earth, they could do the same to the station. But that wouldn’t allow the Doctor to face the moral dilemma demanded by Davies’ script: use the delta wave and kill the Daleks, but also every form of life on Earth; or let the Daleks live so that they can kill every form of life on Earth, which is exactly what they’re already in the process of doing by melting continents. Aside from blunders like this, the story is fantastic.

28. Army of Ghosts/Doomsday. 4 ½ jelly babies. The season-two finale is as good as the above and the ultimate wet dream: the two most popular Who villains invading earth, and then fighting each other to see who’s best. It’s a rare example of fanwank that works (unlike The Stolen Earth/Journey’s End). The appearance of the Daleks caught me way off-guard, and it’s one of the best cliffhangers of the show’s history. And I love the Cult of Skaro: four elite Daleks with actual names, designed to think as the enemy thinks. A great moment is when the Cyberleader proposes an alliance with the Cult, is refused, and demands: “You would destroy five million Cybermen with four Daleks?” To which the response, of course, is that they would destroy five million Cybermen with but a single Dalek, for “this is not a war, this is pest control”. The only let-down is that the skills of these special Daleks are never put to use, and so the Cult is a somewhat wasted opportunity. As for Rose’s departure, it’s off-the-scales tear-jerking; I have never, but never, cried so hard watching anything except for The Grey Havens scene in Lord of the Rings.

29. The Pandorica Opens/The Big Bang. 4 ½ jelly babies. The season-five finale is another piece of excellence, and shows Moffat giving his predecessor the finger whilst feigning homage. The subtext essentially is, if you’re going to raise the stakes to the heights of The Stolen Earth/Journey’s End, Mr. Davies, this is how you do it. The crack in Amy’s bedroom wall proves to be the most successful seasonal story arc in the new series, and while resets are involved, they’re not cheap. They come at a fair price, and there’s emotional payoff. The Doctor’s farewell to Amy as he prepares to sacrifice himself — “You don’t need your imaginary friend anymore” — got me choked up. Also, the reset carries the unexpected surprise of giving back people we never knew existed, notably Amy’s parents, which accounts for the emptiness of Amy’s many-roomed house and why she never talked about a family. The Pandorica Opens is admittedly a stage-setter, but The Big Bang is a mighty payoff.

30. World Enough and Time/The Doctor Falls. 4 ½ jelly babies. Moffat scored with double-bill finales in his first season and last when he was at the helm, and the only thing that keeps this one under The Pandorica Opens/The Big Bang is the Water Girl miracle at the end. Aside from that cheap outrage, this exit point is extremely good, and the best Cybermen story since Rise of the Cybermen/Age of Steel. It’s also the best Master story since Utopia, before Derek Jacobi turned into the comic book villain of John Simm. Here, for the first time ever, Simm is allowed to play the Master with restraint, and the climax with him and Missy (his future self) is a jaw-dropper. The Cybermen were actually scary for a change, and the idea of a spaceship in which time passes faster as you descend levels works brilliantly for the plot.

the-girl-who-waited-pics-3131. The Girl Who Waited. 4 ½ jelly babies. This story wields sentimentality like old-Amy does her sword, but the emotions on display ring true, and it’s impossible not to be moved during the scenes between her and Rory. It’s completely defined by its title: Amy’s tragedy from The Eleventh Hour is repeated, but with far worse results, the simple press of a wrong button costing her half her life. The beauty to this episode is that it does so much with so little; there are no guest characters, just the three regulars; the Two Streams Facility is minimalist as sets get in Doctor Who, but eye-candy just the same with its blinding whiteness and lush topiaries. At heart, the story exposes the Doctor’s destructive nature as Amy faithfully waits on him and evolves into a bitter isolated warrior, whom Rory must find the will to kill.

Dark_Water_story_image32. Dark Water. 4 ½ jelly babies. There are two two double-bill finales whose first halves are excellent, and must be considered apart from the second. The first is Heaven Sent, the very best episode of the series. The second is Dark Water, a subdued horror piece filled with all sorts of upsetting ideas — like dead people feeling the pain of their corpses’ cremations, and the dead being coldly alone in a Sheol-like limbo. The alternate-reality sequence of Clara standing on the edge of a Mount Doom look-alike, threatening the Doctor, and finally throwing all of his TARDIS keys into the lava is their best dramatic scene in all of seasons eight and nine. The story’s second half, Death in Heaven, takes too many problematic turns with the Cybermen. The Brigadier-Cyberman is rubbish, and Danny’s love overcoming his cyber-impulses is so awful it nearly ruins the story. But Dark Water is truly excellent.

33. The Unquiet Dead. 4 ½ jelly babies. This was the first gothic historical of the new series, and it channeled the Hinchcliffe era with brilliant sets, solid scares, and first-rate guest performances. Charles Dickens is played as a skeptic who becomes more open-minded about ghostly matters on account of his dealings with the Doctor. Though of course, the corpses stalking Cardiff aren’t really undead, but animated by gaseous aliens from another dimension, as they want to reclaim every corpse on earth for bodily existence. The best part is that the Doctor actually aids them in their morbid goal out of pity (after all, human corpses are just corpses), not realizing the aliens’ real goal goal to dominate planet earth once they acquire physical existence. The Doctor is astonishingly incompetent in this story, and it’s up to Dickens and a house maid to save the day.

34. Tooth and Claw. 4 ½ jelly babies. I would have never guessed Russell Davies was capable of writing a gothic historical, let alone one of the best gothic historicals. And I’d always wanted to see a werewolf story in Doctor Who. You can’t do better for setting than the Scottish highlands. Queen Victoria is as colorful as Charles Dickens, and the ninja monks are a big bonus. The monks’ agenda is to get the Queen bitten so they can rule the British empire through her, though it’s never quite clear whether they’re worshiping the werewolf or using it for their own ends. The ending is priceless, when the Queen rewards the Doctor with a knighthood, and then promptly banishes him, “not amused” by his heathen nature.

DWMummy35. Mummy on the Orient Express. 4 ½ jelly babies. Set on a plush space-train that recreates the Orient Express, one of the most gorgeous set pieces ever in Doctor Who, and fitting for a “farewell” episode: Clara can no longer deal with the Doctor after the way he treated her in Kill the Moon, and so this train-ride is supposed to be their last hurrah. Peter Capaldi channels both Tom and Colin Baker brilliantly, with brusque humor, jelly-baby offerings, and an astonishing callousness that demands innocent people die willingly while feeding him information in their last minute of life. Despite all this, Clara realizes she can’t let go of the Doctor after all. This story fossilizes the vastly improved chemistry between Clara and the Doctor, which is so unlike her previous hollow relationship with Matt Smith. The mummy is a magnified terror out of the Hinchcliffe era.

36. The God Complex. 4 ½ jelly babies. This swan song for Amy — or the pseudo-swan song — trails her most harrowing experience in The Girl Who Waited, and finally crushes her childlike faith in the Doctor. It does this in a tense story about a beast who feeds off corrupted belief in a haunted hotel, where each room contains the worst fears of one individual. Amy faces hers and is liberated, and her farewell at the end is as beautiful and simple like Sarah’s in The Hand of Fear. In its own way it’s as powerful as her real departure in The Angels Take Manhattan. Like Sarah’s in the ’70s, it delivers so much in simple gestures and looks that speak volumes. There’s a real feel in the closing scene that the Doctor and Amy have have become best friends and find it enormously painful to part company. I give it a slight edge over the next one.

37. The Angels Take Manhattan. 4 jelly babies. Amy’s actual departure is a tragedy. It’s basically Blink 3, and like Alien 3 noirish to the core, with a prison environment and ghastly premise: the weeping angels are using Manhattan as a human farm, sending victims back in time over and over again to feed their existence. A lot of it frankly doesn’t make much sense. The Statue of Liberty incarnation scared the shit out of me at first, but it’s conceptually stupid. But the graveyard epilogue nails it just right, and is a tear-jerker like Doomsday: as Rose was stranded in another dimension against her will, Amy chooses to be stranded in the past against the Doctor’s. This is the alternate ending for Amy Pond, as I see it, to The God Complex, and it would have been the proper season-six finale, instead of the River Song thread which Moffat never had a real plan with.

38. Oxygen. 4 jelly babies. A standout from season ten. The Doctor and Billy answer a distress call, and find that most people on board the space station are undead zombies lumbering around in spacesuits. The space suits have killed them on behalf of a faceless corporation that exploits workers by charging them for the air they breathe — and then cutting off their supply when they can no longer pay. It calls to mind the anti-capitalist government classics The Sun Makers and The Happiness Patrol. It’s by far the most tense episode in the otherwise stale season ten (aside from Extremis), and when Bill’s space suit malfunctions, the Doctor makes a moving sacrifice, giving her his helmet and ending blind from exposure to vacuum.

39. Lux. 4 jelly babies. Most of the Gatwa stories are trash, except for the Doctor-lite episodes (that Gatwa is largely absent from) and a few like Lux, where the Doctor actually feels like the Doctor again, and Russell Davies proves he hasn’t entirely lost his mojo. Here the Doctor and Belinda arrive in 1952 Miami (two black people in the segregation era) to investigate an abandoned cinema. Movie-goers have vanished in this cinema, because an animated entity has trapped them inside a cartoon film reality. It’s a bold premise and it’s loads of fun watching the Doctor and Belinda becoming cartoons and trying to figure out how to escape Lux’s traps – like acquiring physical dimensions by showing emotional dimensions — and the meta-commentary about fandom is a plus, as when the Doctor and Belinda find themselves in a room of Doctor Who fans. Davies was clearly trying to revivify some of the magic of Love and Monsters (immediately below) and it worked very well.

love and mon40. Love and Monsters. 4 jelly babies. It took many years for me to get closure on this Doctor-lite story, and in hindsight I marvel at that. It’s a divisive episode for understandable reasons, but rewarding when taken on its awkward merits. Around the slapstick comedy run strong themes – loneliness, despair, broken relationships, and fan worship. It’s an incredibly bleak tale, ending in the nasty demise of the entire LINDA team at the hands of the Absorbaloff, not to mention the tragic story behind Elton’s visions of the Doctor. These are geeks who need the mystery and the magic of the Doctor to fulfill their lives, which dooms them to misery (and it turns out the worse fate of death). The cartoonish monster and silly tone complement this rather than clash with it (as I used to think), given the theme of Doctor Who fandom that Davies is so clearly poking fun at as he explores serious themes.

41. Lucky Day. 4 jelly babies. This Doctor-lite story, on the other hand, won me over completely on first viewing. Maybe because season fifteen sucked overall in the way that season two was so excellent, and so Lucky Day didn’t have to try too hard to impress… but no, this story is genuinely good no matter what rotten episodes you compare it to. The first half focuses on Ruby, who left the Doctor in season fourteen, and now suffers traumas and PTSD problems. It’s a compelling look at what happens to a companion left behind in a way that hasn’t been done before. Then midway it shifts gears dramatically to become a biting satire — on social media, internet echo chambers, and the spread of misinformation. Ruby’s boyfriend turns out to be a piece of shit who wants to bring down UNIT, and he crusades against the military with online slander that earns him fame and the complete disgust of the viewer, especially given how convincing he was pretending to care for Ruby in the first half.

42. Planet of the Ood. 4 jelly babies. It’s not often the Doctor gets political and crushes oppression, but it happens from time to time, especially on alien planets in the future, and Planet of the Ood is in fact the best “revolution” story after the Tom Baker classics Sun Makers (taxation) and E-Space trilogy (servitude and slavery). It’s great seeing the Doctor bring management to its knees when provoked, and in this case he clearly feels guilty for having let so many Ood die in his battle against Satan in season two. But what really sets this story above average is the musical climax, which is simply transcendent, and defines the story in a way never seen on the show. I get chills during the last five minutes of this episode, and not from the ice planet.

43. Journey to the Center of the TARDIS. 4 jelly babies. Season seven is awful, especially the second half, but this story is a delight if you take it at face value and enjoy the eye candy. I always wanted to see a story that explored the TARDIS’s interior, and of course the Tom Baker story The Invasion of Time botched that effort as badly as an effort can be botched. Here the TARDIS’s rooms are done justice, and the story succeeds on that strength alone. Granted the plot is by-the-numbers, and it ends on a reset (a new day rewrites the disastrous day experienced at the start), but none of that matters. This is the rare episode that doesn’t need to be scrutinized. The rewarding set pieces are what matter.

44. The Christmas Invasion. 4 jelly babies. The first and only good Christmas special written by Russell Davies turns out to be a great introduction to the Tenth Doctor. The substandard invasion-of-earth baggage works for rather than against it, even the ludicrous killer-Christmas trees. The dramatic tension builds well in the first half due to the Doctor being out of commission as he recovers from regenerating, and when he finally emerges from those TARDIS doors, we want to clap like kids. He gets in a good sword fight with the alien-king before banishing his race from earth, and the best scene is his hand getting chopped off then immediately regenerating. And the “Song for Ten” at the end is perfect.

45. Dot and Bubble. 4 jelly babies. Black Mirror is my favorite TV series, so how can I not adore Dot and Bubble? Here we have people so buried in their social media bubbles that they literally can’t see what’s physically around them, not even when people are being devoured by monsters, whether on the streets or in work office spaces. They need an automated voice to steer them as they walk from one place to another. The Doctor and Ruby manage to liberate a young narcissist, who slowly learns to step out of her bubble, but like other members of this society she’s a rather terrible person (a posh white supremacist), and in the end she can only show contempt for the Doctor instead of the gratitude he deserves. This is so Black Mirror and full of deliciously biting satire in every frame.

into the dalek46. Into the Dalek. 4 jelly babies. As in the season-one classic, a captive Dalek provides a mirror to the Doctor’s own hatred. But this is no lazy repeat. The conceit is something I’ve wanted to see done right since The Invisible Enemy blew it: the Doctor and his companion shrunk down to microscopic size and injected into a brain to root out infection. Here they must navigate inside a “good” Dalek that is hell-bent on exterminating the rest of its kind. As the Twelfth Doctor’s first “real” story (following the post-regeneration premiere), it announces the Sixth’s influence without apology. This Doctor makes no pretense of valuing human life when sacrificing it is necessary; he doesn’t even try to save Ross when the Dalek antibodies come for him — he even gives him a moment’s false hope. The action is intense and the Daleks are menacing in a way not seen since season two.

47. Boom. 4 jelly babies. A bottle episode set on a war-torn planet, where the Doctor can’t move because he’s standing on a landmine. Tom Baker fans will recall Genesis of the Daleks, in which Harry Sullivan got the Doctor out of a similar situation by wedging rocks under the mine. No such luck this time: the Doctor is trapped and unable to move for the episode’s duration, which leaves the suspense to be delivered through cracking, angry dialogue. The Doctor is pissed about religious-based wars, and there’s a great “Thoughts and Prayers” swipe at corporate powers devoid of empathy. Best of all, the Doctor actually feels like The Doctor of seasons past: a force to be reckoned with — though, true to to the Fifteenth’s form, he doesn’t save the day: the dead father of the girl saves the day, when his AI persona takes down the Ambulances. Like the Ninth Doctor, the Fifteenth saves the day in about only 30% of his stories, and that’s one of the few things I like about Eccleston’s and Gatwa’s Doctors: their remarkable ineffectuality.

48. The Shakespeare Code. 4 jelly babies. Some of the overused campy humor keeps this story from reaching the heights of historicals like The Unquiet Dead and Tooth and Claw, but it’s still a great story. The mystery of Shakespeare’s lost play is finally solved, where William is being harassed by a trio of witches who use the power of words to unlock space-time boundaries. They need a wordsmith to open a gate for their kind to invade earth, and Love’s Labour’s Won becomes the medium for that goal. As always, there’s science behind the superstition: voodoo dolls are DNA replicators; spells are incanted the same way mathematical computations are intoned in the Tom Baker classic Logopolis. The Doctor cites quotes that Shakespeare hasn’t come up with yet; Shakespeare hits on Martha with racist “compliments”. The climax is both hilarious and genius as Shakespeare defeats the witches by using their own weapon against them — pure verse, which burns them like holy water and closes the gate forever.

49. The Caretaker. 4 jelly babies. The Caretaker may be a filler story like The Lodger, but if you have a nasty sense of humor like me, you’ll probably get loads of mileage from it. The alien threat is a throw-away, because it’s not the point of the episode, only an excuse to get the Doctor meddling in the affairs of Clara’s school. More than an alien hunter, he’s a stalker in this episode, meaning that he stalks Clara out of overprotective paternal feelings (that he hardly understands) and acts like a shit all the way through. This is the episode where the Doctor and Clara’s relationship begins to feel real, as he acts all assholery, and she lashes right back. What can I say, this is my kind of Doctor.

The_Waters_of_Mars50. Waters of Mars. 4 jelly babies. The “special year” between seasons four and five was the year of stinkers Davies was rolling out before Moffat took charge. Except for Waters of Mars, which is a ripper that works on two levels, the first completely successfully, the second not as much. The straightforward level is a base-under-siege in the classic sense, as crew members on Mars are being infected by water that turns them into lethal zombies. The other level attempts to explore the Doctor’s dark side as he violates the laws of time. The problem is that his crime doesn’t seem particularly reprehensible, because there’s no convincing reason why the deaths of this particular crew on Mars are so unalterable as “fixed points” in time. If Adelaide’s death is supposed to inspire more outer-space missions, that inspiration could just as easily come from some result in a new timeline where she lives. But this story is suspenseful and scary enough that the weakness is almost invisible.

I should address two particular stories that didn’t make my cut and which are unduly praised by many.

The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances. Moffat’s supposed masterpiece is, to me, severely overrated. There’s so much about it that irks me, first being the “everyone lives” trope. Yes, the happy ending was copied in Silence of the Library/Forest of the Dead, but at least that was only in the matrix, so River Song and her friends still really died. In this story it’s a cheat that trivializes the horror. Worse is Captain Jack, who is really a Russell Davies character through and through, even if Moffat wrote him, and whose interactions with the Doctor and Rose clash with the story’s dark tone. And finally are the horror-features themselves: kid-zombies crying “mummy” over and over again. They’re more irritating than scary. The only great thing that can be said for this story is the inspired setting of the London Blitz. I honestly don’t get the high esteem for it. I’d give it a middle-of-the-road 3 jelly babies.

The Well. Billing this story as a sequel to Midnight did it no favors, because aside from the setting, Midnight this isn’t. Midnight was Davies’ masterpiece, a brilliant exploration of what ordinary people turn into when they’re isolated in danger (a la “Lord of the Flies”), and it was unrelentingly terrifying. The characters were well fleshed out. The Well is about trained soldiers not always behaving as if they’ve been professionally trained, and the terrors are more traditional. It’s the same difference between the masterpiece Alien and the overrated Aliens. I’d give The Well only 3 jelly babies; it’s enjoyable enough but very overrated.

Trump vs. Anthropic, and our Attitude Towards AI

Bob Kruger has written an excellent piece on Anthropic’s decision to take down its Fable model, in response to Trump shenanigans. I should note that I have not used Fable. I know two people who have (one of them Bob) who speak positively about it. As for why this happened, apparently Amazon CEO Andy Jassy, stewing over the fact that Amazon’s AI models are a joke, went to the government to sabotage Anthropic. The Trump administration has had a weed up its ass about Anthropic for its own reasons.

Bob makes acute observations about this, and about our current posture towards AI in general. Those who are unreasonably hostile to AI need to adjust and stop retreating from reality. They won’t like this, but I believe Bob’s attitude towards AI is the correct and beneficial one. Here’s what he posted on Facebook:

I told my friend Loren I was going to write an ill-advised post in view of information he just shared with me, and here it is.

The Trump administration has obliged Anthropic to take down its Fable model, citing security concerns that seem to me, well, trumped up. Not that there aren’t security concerns, but that politics, money, and vendettas are probably taking precedence over decisions in the public interest.

Maybe you’ve noticed that there’s animus against AI, and that a few writers and artists are trying to pressure their audience not to use generative AI, though I haven’t seen them clearly define what that means. Google search? Well, that’s generative AI at this point. Code autocompletion tools. Generative AI. Using a chatbot to interpret your medical test results. Generative AI.

I use generative AI primarily to learn, but the way I use it to learn might not be the way you use it to learn. The way you use it to learn might look like creating junk images and videos — or amazing ones. It might look like trying to seize unearned power rather than just exploring what AI can do. I am not in a position to judge. This morbid fascination online with inferring people’s motivations from their actions bums me out.

It’s good to be alert to harms, but blanket proscriptions against AI are blinkered. And the point they’re addressing may quickly become moot in a way I find alarming, as exemplified by the government’s pressure on Anthropic.

LLMs came to mass attention because of Sam Altman’s insistence on rushing ChatGPT out to the public. Frankly, I suspect his motivations and don’t trust him, but what scares me worse than a world where AI is played with openly is one in which it is not, where it is quietly gaining power and being weaponized against the many for the benefit of the few.

Those who spread the message that current AI is simply a stochastic-parrot plagiarism machine are taking far too narrow a view. It is almost certainly not sentient, but it is clearly intelligent. To those who study AI, the “stochastic parrot” framing is simply cargo-cult mentality: misrepresenting science and technology to fit a limited understanding circumscribed by superstition or wishful thinking. Kinda like evolution denialism.

Again, these things are generally intelligent. I played with Fable for a few days, and it was remarkable. I have to do very little prompting for it to understand my problem space, and it makes associations within that space I could not make and opens up dimensions between that space and other problem spaces that I cannot.

AI recently, unequivocally passed the Turing Test. If you’re not all that bright, like me, you probably dismissed this news, at least initially, with the thought that of course there are susceptible people who will be taken in by these machines and judge them intelligent, but that will never really be me. If I’m fooled, it’s because I’m fooled like I might be fooled by a skilled illusionist; that doesn’t mean I’ll ever accept that an illusionist is doing real magic.

I have come to suspect that perspective is naive. If there is no functional difference between intelligence and the appearance of intelligence, then the debate has become a callow philosophical exercise. You really need to get this viscerally before you understand: at some point, probably not long off, you will FEEL that this thing is not only intelligent, but more intelligent than you, that a line has been crossed, that you are not outside the Turing Test but within it and unable to assume a superior attitude. Fable was that for me.

Or, worse, maybe you won’t face that reckoning, when you should.

The Mythos model, of which Fable is a subset, could be close to the last large frontier model whose capabilities are generally available to the public in a timely way. Meanwhile, a few people will be harnessing much more powerful intelligence, to both drive research and, to a probably greater extent, manipulate markets and separate you from money and opportunity.

A model withheld for a few months currently gives its controller a huge leg up. A few weeks is probably material. But within years, an advantage of days, hours, maybe just seconds, will be material.

The Trump administration is a carrion bird pretending it’s an angel to feed off you more easily when you’re at a disadvantage, manufacturing crises to manipulate the market, and now, apparently, picking which AI models should get shut down first so as to throw money and power to its favorites. Of course they chose the company that denied them carte blanche use of their models for autonomous weapons.

I know, I know, who is Anthropic to reserve for itself power that should belong to the American people and deny the US military the right to weaponize it? I actually think that’s a fair objection. “We trust them more than the administration” is not a scalable proposition. Companies are not categorically more trustworthy than governments, even if this company is more trustworthy right now than this government. Whoever holds the biggest stick is essentially the government, and we didn’t vote for Anthropic.

So should you use generative AI or not? We wouldn’t even be having this debate if it hadn’t been released. I for one do not think ignorance is bliss. I think it’s effing dangerous.

Advocate against the encroachment of commodity AI into the market for human art, fight the large data centers where they’re threatening to destroy your neighborhoods, assert your copyright claims and seek redress through class action. But educate yourself about AI however you need to, and reject cargo-cult explanations for how this technology works or what its potentials are. We’re surrounded by vultures posing as angels, and they will use AI, and those who decide to remain ignorant face marginalization, irrelevance, poverty, and maybe even extinction.

Banned in Britain: Cenk Uygur and Robert Spencer

I’ll be upfront: I don’t take Cenk Uygur seriously. I also don’t believe he deserves to be banned from entering the U.K. And yet Britain apparently finds his left-wing Israel-bashing so threatening as to make him a public menace. The way Cenk describes it, he’s being banned because, according to Britain’s Secretary of Homeland Security,

“There are fears that Cenk’s presence would exacerbate anti-Semitism due to his rhetoric since the October 7th attacks in 2023. This includes repeating classic anti-Semitic tropes, such as the claim that Israel controls America. He falsely claimed on his podcast last year that the Israeli lobby gave more to Congress than any other. He has also dismissed evidence relating to Muslim grooming gangs, saying that it’s ‘Islamophobic’ to show sympathy for the 1400 victims of those gangs.”

Cenk responds to these charges with his usual drama. He insists that his claims about Congress are true: 94% of Congress gets money from the Israeli lobby and then they do what the lobby wants. “It’s legalized bribery in politics”, he says. But receiving a donation doesn’t equate to “being controlled”. Every politician under the sun receives donations from many sources. To say that Israel “controls America” is laughable in any case, since Congress is only part of the American government — not to mention that what one means by “control” involves subjective value judgments alongside factual ones.

With regards to Muslim grooming gangs, Cenk claims that he never denied their existence. He only claimed that the gangs were being over-hyped as a distraction. He’s wrong about that. The gangs have been underreported in the media for politically-correct reasons and so it’s quite appropriate and necessary to underscore the phenomenon of these gangs to make people aware of the problem. And it’s insulting to the victims of those gangs to downplay the phenomenon out of fear of being “racist”.

But that’s no reason to ban the guy. I don’t care how much of an idiot-ass he is. He’s so idiotic that he believes Bill Maher to be “a deeply immoral and disgusting person” and “one of the biggest racists in American media”. Bill Maher is anything but those things, and he’s certainly not a Muslim hater just because he sees the inherent problems with Islam as a religion. Cenk’s view of Maher alone discredits him. But in the arena of public debate and discourse, Cenk Uygur is on the same footing as anyone else. Slandering decent people as racists and trashing Israel to kingdom come doesn’t warrant being silenced by governmental authorities. Let the public discourse handle those problems. Let Cenk speak his mind.

And to be fair, Cenk is right about one thing. Being anti-Israel doesn’t equate to anti-Semitism, and Cenk is no anti-Semite. I’ve listened to him enough to know that. Branding someone an anti-Semite for criticizing Israel as a nation and its policies is as bad as calling someone an anti-Muslim bigot (or an “Islamophobe”, to use the propagandist term) for criticizing the doctrine of Islam and the realities of terror experienced by those under Islamic law. Of course, Cenk doesn’t have the grace to acknowledge the latter, which makes him a hypocrite. After all, he thinks Bill Maher is a racist who hates Muslims — which is so preposterous it hardly deserves a reply — and he thinks that way about others too.

Which brings me to the other public figure who was banned by the U.K. thirteen years ago: Robert Spencer. Robert is opposite Cenk in every way — as right as Cenk is left, and as right as Cenk is wrong. Robert has written excellent books like The History of Jihad and The Critical Qur’an, and has been a guest speaker and engaged in public debate in many places across the U.S. But in 2013 he was denied entry into the U.K. As Robert tells it, he was banned for saying, among other things, that

“Islam is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose of establishing a societal model that’s absolutely incompatible with western society.”

So Robert was banned for making true and factual statements. Islam does require holy war, in all schools of Sunni jurisprudence. Islam is a religio-political system fundamentally incompatible with free speech; it forbids the criticism of Islam, and forbids the equality of rights of women with men, and the equality of rights of non-Muslims with Muslims. Obviously there are many Muslims who don’t follow these mandates, but the mandates stand regardless — as a divine imperative. The result is a disproportionate number of Muslims in the world who take up the call to be Islamists if not full-fledged jihadists. There’s nothing racist or hateful in making those observations, but it hasn’t stopped someone like Cenk from trashing Robert just as he has trashed Bill Maher.

Now, if you had told me back in 2013 that the nation to ban Robert Spencer would be the same nation to ban Cenk Uygur, I wouldn’t have believed it. I would have told you that the U.K. would surely be waving pom-poms for Cenk, and applauding his flaming left-wing anti-Israel rants. Who could have guessed? Back in 2013 Britain didn’t want you underscoring the realities of Islam. Now they don’t want you criticizing Israel. Robert’s ban in 2013 happened under David Cameron’s Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, while Cenk’s ban is from a Labor government. It’s hard to make sense of.

Minsters get to decide who cross their borders, but U.K. ministers are obviously lacking in judgment. If you’re truly a public menace, then you should expect to be rightly banned. But neither Robert Spencer nor Cenk Uygur comes close to fitting the bill. Someone like Pastor Steven Anderson comes closer, but even he is ultimately harmless.